Madras High Court
M.Mageshwari vs Palaniammal on 29 June, 2012
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 29.06.2012 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.R.C.No.93 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012 M.Mageshwari .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Palaniammal Sub Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Kodumudi. 2.Selvambal, Second Grade Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Kodumudi. 3.Selvi.Umamaheswari, Women Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Kodumudi. 4.Malarkodi, Women Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Kodumudi. 5.Ramasubramniam Village Administrative Officer, Kodumudi "A" Village, Kodumudi. 6.Chinnadurai Executive Officer, Kodumudi Municipality Office, Kodumudi, Now B.B.Agraharam Municipality Office, Erode. 7.Ganesan, Incircle Surveyor, Kodumudi 8.Chinnasamy @ Tailor Chinnnasamy 9.Manimaran 10.Shanmugam @ Pettykadai Shanmugam 11.Chandiran @ Pollachi Chandiran 12.Senthil .. Respondents Prayer :- Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order dated 16.11.2011 made in C.M.P.No.1920 of 2011 in C.C.No.462 of 2011, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode by allowing the revision and consequently, direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the procedures enumerated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaram Kumar Government Advocate for R1 to R5 Mr.K.Karthikeyan for R6 served (R7 to R12) - - - ORDER
The petitioner / petitioner / complainant has preferred the present revision against the order made in C.M.P.No.1920 of 2011 in C.C.No.462 of 2011, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The complainant states that she is living in Survey No.58 situated in Kodumudi Village, Nagapalayam, Oor Natham for nearly two decades and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The complainant was given ration card and the voter's identity card by the concerned authorities. It was submitted that one Selvambal, the Second Grade Police, Kodukudi Police Station, Kodumudi had informed one Ramasubramanian, the Village Administrative Officer, Kodumudi not to grant any patta to the complainant. The V.A.O. had also succumbed to the whims of the said Selvambal and has been refusing to grant patta to the complainant. The complainant further states that she filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16453 of 2011, to consider her application for grant of patta and the same was ordered on 12.07.2011. It was submitted that on 20.07.2011, at about 1 p.m., the 6th accused Chinnadurai, the fifth accused Ramasubramaniam, the seventh accused Ganesan, the first accused Palaniammal, the second accused Selvambal, the third accused Umamaheswari, the fourth accused Malarkodi, the eighth accused Chinnasamy, the ninth accused Manimaran, the tenth accused Shanmugam, the eleventh accused Chandiran and the twelfth accused Senthil and others of Nagapalayam had forcibly entered her house, without giving any notice and threatened her to vacate the house. At that time, the complainant, her mother and brother Ramasami were in the house. When the complainant told them that she had received an order from High Court to grant patta to her, the fifth accused, viz., Village Administrative Officer had informed her that the land was poromboke land and that she is not entitled to stay in the place and further directed the Surveyor to take measurements of the house and also told her that they would throw away her hut by taking help of villagers and police. When the complainant objected to the measurement of land by the Surveyor, the first accused, viz.,Palaniammal had hit against the cheeks of the complainant and also kicked her with boots due to which, the complainant had fallen down. Subsequently, when she tried to get up, the second, third and fourth accused who are women constables pressed the shoulder of the complainant and the Tailor Chinnasami inflicted cut injuries on her head by hitting her head with a knife. Subsequently, when the complainant tried to flee from the place, the villagers, viz., accused 8 to 12 has chased the complainant and pulled the saree of the complainant. When the complainant ran to the bus stop, the twelfth accused Senthil tore her jacket and the eighth accused Chinnasami twisted the arm of the complainant and tied her and about 10 villagers had pulled her to the ground and stamped on her. When the complainant's brother had come to the spot, all the accused had fled the scene but threatened her that they would not stop without killing her. It was submitted that the eighth and twelfth accused had humiliated and abused the modesty of the complainant based on the support given by the first to fourth accused and she had been indiscriminately beaten and as such, sustained bleeding injuries and also threatened with dire consequences. The complainant was taken to the Government Hospital, Erode for treatment. It was submitted that one Palaniammal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Kodumudi, just to escape from this incident had registered a false complaint against the complainant to show as if the complainant had prevented the officials from doing their duty. It was submitted that the Kodumudi Police failed to act upon the intimation from the Government Hospital and the complaint given by the complainant was also not entertained. Hence, the complainant had presented the private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode on 13.09.2011.
3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode recorded the sworn statement on the same day and ordered for 202 inquiries and directed the petitioner to produce the witnesses. The petitioner examined one Ramasamy who witnessed the occurrence and the doctor who treated her. The learned Magistrate, on perusal of the complaint and evidence given by the witnesses including the doctor, held that a prima facie case has been made out under Section 32 of IPC against the accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 12 and under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code against accused No.5 and under Sections 324, 354 and 323 of IPC against accused No.8 and under Sections 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code against accused No.10. The learned Magistrate, on observing that the witnesses had not spoken about any criminal acts of the accused Nos.6, 7 and 11, dismissed the complaint as against the sixth, seventh and eleventh accused and a direction to issue summons to the other accused was given.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed in C.M.P.No.1920 of 2011 in C.C.No.462 of 2011, the petitioner / complainant has preferred the present revision.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended in his revision that the learned Magistrate erred in not taking cognizance against three accused persons and ought to have issued process against the respondents herein after having found that a prima facie case has been made out. It was contended that the learned Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance only for lesser offences when the complaint discloses serious offence on bare perused of it. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the order made in C.M.P.No.1920 of 2011 in C.C.No.462 of 2011, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, and direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the procedures enumerated under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. The Very competent Government Advocate, Mr.D.Sivaram Kumar appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that the learned Magistrate had taken the said case on his file after scrutinizing the ingredients of the said complaint and proceeded with the same against all the respondents except 6, 7 and 11. Therefore, the revision petitioner cannot insist on the Court to proceed against all the accused.
7. The very competent counsel, Mr.R.Karthikeyan appearing for the sixth respondent submits that there is no prima facie case against the 6th, 7th, and 11th respondents herein. The complainant had included them as co-accused without any documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had omitted them from the list of accused since no case has been made out against them.
8. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at by the learned Magistrate for omitting the said respondents. Since the main case is pending for about three years, this Court directs the learned Magistrate to dispose the main case on the topmost priority basis.
9. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed inC.M.P.No.1920 of 2011 in C.C.No.462 of 2011, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, dated 16.11.2011 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.06.2012
r n s
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
C.S.KARNAN, J
r n s
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Erode.
Crl.R.C.No.93 of 2012 &
M.P.No.1 of 2012
29.06.2012