Madras High Court
B.Ranganathan vs State Rep. By
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order Reserved on : 23.04.2021
Order Pronounced on : .06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021
and
Crl.MP.No.4836 & 4837 of 2021
1.B.Ranganathan
2.TRC.Venkatesh @ Gowrishankar ... Petitioners
Versus
State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
CBI/SCB, Chennai – 600 090. ... Respondent
(Crime No.RCS.9/S/2014/CBI/SCB/Chennai)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 25.01.2021 in
Crl.MP.No.3271 of 2020 in SC.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Special Court No.I, for trial of Criminal Cases related to elected Members
of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai, dismissing the Discharge Petition preferred by the petitioner.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel.
for Mr.E.Raj Thilak
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor,
for CBI cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1 /27
Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners/accused A11 & A12, to set aside the order dated 25.01.2021 in Crl.MP.No.3271 of 2020 in SC.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Court No.I, for a trial of Criminal Cases related to elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, whereby the Discharge Petition filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
2.The gist of the case is that on 10.01.2012, one Bhuvaneswaran, S/o. Siva, deceased in this case was accosted by five persons at Kambar Street, Kolathur, while returning from school along with his younger daughter Rudra/LW4. At that time, the above said five persons attacked Bhuvaneswaran with long knives and he succumbed to injuries. The attack was informed to the family of Bhuvaneswaran (deceased), and they came to the scene of occurrence and made arrangements to admit him to the nearby hospital, but he was declared as brought dead. Thereafter, the father of the deceased, Siva had lodged a complaint based on which the case in Crime No.19 of 2012 came to be registered. In that complaint, he disclosed that his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 son was murdered by henchmen belonging to the group of Ranganathan/A11/first petitioner herein, due to a land dispute at Morai Village, Avadi in Chennai. According to the complainant, the said Ranganathan forcibly occupied the land belonged to him with intention to grab the same illegally and claiming ownership to the residential layout and trespassed into the layout which was developed by the defacto complainant. In the complaint, it was further stated that the above said illegal act of the petitioners and the others were vehemently opposed by the deceased/Bhuvaneswaran, who was looking after the layout project, due to his ill health of his father. The deceased was dealing with the project, who started a Welfare Association and also taken the support of communist party, lodged several complaints with T7, Tank Factory Police Station, Avadi against the petitioners and other accused and held protest, Dharana along with the residential association members and communist party, which caused inconvenience to the petitioner's plan, hence with support of A1 and henchmen prevented the complainant from freely dealing with the property with the assistance and connivance of A4 to A8, Bhuvaneswaran was murdered. It is further stated that A-11 and A-12 conspired with other accused and committed the murder of his son Bhuvaneswaran/deceased in broad bright daylight that too when he was with his school going younger https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 daughter at the time of occurrence.
3.On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed in PRC.No.131 of 2012, on the file of V-Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, thereafter, the case was transferred to the file of CBI for further investigation by an order dated 09.10.2014. The CBI re-registered a case in Crime No.RCS.9/S/2014/CBI/SCB/Chennai on 27.11.2014. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in PRC.No.93 of 2019, thereafter, it was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.34 of 2020, in which, the petitioners filed a discharge petition and the same was dismissed, against which, the present revision case before this Court.
4.The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent on completion of investigation had filed a charge sheet, listing LW.1 to LW.54 as witnesses, out of which the statement of 39 witnesses recorded, for 15 witnesses, no statements recorded.
(i) LW.1 is the brother of the deceased, who states about the threat faced by his brother from the petitioners and their henchmen.
(ii) LW.2/mother of the deceased states that her husband/Siva/defacto complainant had lodged the complaint against accused including A11 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 A12, the petitioners herein, who are responsible for the murder of her son.
(iii) LW.3 is the wife of the deceased, who states that her husband had developed the layout in the name of “Thirumal Nagar Annexue”, which was promoted and dealt with by him. The statement of LW3 includes attack of henchmen of A11.
(iv) LW.6, Dhasarathan/watchman of Veerapuram Welfare Association states that A11 and A12 used to visit the Welfare Association, and threatened all the members. He also stated that the entire land belongs one Rajendra Raja. Further, in the year 2009, A11 and A12 visited Morai Village and came to the office of the Association, threatened them to vacate the place. He also states about the lodging of complaint to T7, Tank Factory, Police Station, Avadi and holding, protest meetings against the petitioners.
(v) LW.7 is the President of Veerapuram New Colony Welfare Association who states that A12 was brought by A1, with whom the case was entrusted as an Advocate and he informed that case was decreed against the defacto complainant and the same is held in favour of M/s.Amaravathi Cranes and Structural Limited and they have to vacate the place. In this context, there was a hunger strike held on 01.03.2011 by the deceased and on the same day there were settlement talks made and an agreement was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 signed between them, in which, A12 and A1 stood as a witness.
5.Further, the purchasers of the land from the deceased were too threatened to re-convey the property or pay the balance sale consideration to A1. LW.8 is the Secretary of Veerapuram New Colony Welfare Association, who states about the encroachment made with the support of the petitioners and his statement is LW.12, is a real estate broker. Further, A12 briefs A11 about the developments and A11 had shown interest in the property. LW.14 is the AIADMK councillor of Morai Village Panchayat and his wife was the president of the Village. LW14 states that A1 asked for NOC in the name of Kalimuthu and he informed that A11 and A12 forced him to do so. LW.15/ Chitra Nambi is one of the Plot owners, who was threatened and directed to re-convey the property or pay the money or else she would be killed. LW.18 is a real estate broker who states about the sale. LW.19 is the power of attorney of one Rajendra Raja, who states that he acted as power of attorney on the compulsion of the petitioner and he acted only as per their direction and whatever benefits accrued out of the sale of Plots in Morai Village, the same was handed over to A1 and A12, further on their direction, he will come and execute the documents and all the sale proceedings are received by them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021
6.LW.29 is the Manager of Amaravathi Firm. He states that the original owner of the land informed him that A1 trespassed into the land and threatened the Plot owners and caused obstruction for the layout developed by the defacto complainant. He also states that the land was purchased by him from one Madhavan. He confirms the act of A11 and A12. LW.30, a maid, who purchased a Plot from the deceased states that she was called for a meeting in A12's office, and she was threatened by A12. LW.31/ wife of LW.6 states about A11, who along with his muscle men threatened her and her husband to vacate the house otherwise the house would be demolished.
7.LW.32/ one of the Plot owners state that A12 threatened to vacate the land. These are the witnesses projected against the petitioners. On the overall reading of the settlement of these witnesses, nothing could be inferred and there is no tangible evidence against the petitioners to show that the petitioners conspired with the other accused in this case.
8.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that LW.7 has stated that one Azhagan, President of Veerapuram New Colony Welfare Association stated that he informed the above facts to Amaravathi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 firm. However, the defacto complainant purchased the property from the said Madhavan in the year 2014. The lands are projected as though owned by Madhavan and later by Siva/father of the deceased. LW.11/ Special Sub- Inspector of Police/Ramakrishnan states that the Petition No.193 of 2010 dated 15.07.2010; Petition No.184 of 2010 dated 11.07.2010; Petition No.143 of 2010 dated 13.06.2010; Petition No.155 of 2010 dated 22.06.2010 were given against the petitioners and the same were closed for the reason that one of the parties did not appear for enquiry in this case. It is to be seen that the alleged conspiracy committed to murder the deceased is said to have had taken place on 08.01.2012 when the accused assembled near Morai Village. Thereafter, on 09.01.2012 and 10.01.2012 further conspiracy continued in the house of A10 at Ambattur. During the said period the petitioners were detained in prison. The petitioners were detained under Act,14, on 08.08.2011 and they were released, as per the order passed in HCP.No.1133 & 1134 of 2011, dated 19.01.2012. The occurrence had taken place on 10.01.2012 and admittedly, the petitioners were detained in prison at that point of time.
9.It is to be seen that LW.38/Inspector of Police, on verifying the visitors list, who visited the petitioners in Jail, during their period of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 detention, found that none of the co-accused, in this case had visited them. It is a land dispute between the rival parties, and the petitioners have nothing to do with the land dispute as per the final report in PRC.No.131 of 2012. Hence, the petitioners were not included as accused by Kolathur Police. After examination of 32 witnesses, the charge sheet was filed. Now due to political pressure and common animosity among vested interested people, the petitioners were made as accused. There is no material to show that A1 is a henchmen of the petitioners, and there are also a discrepancy with regard to the time of occurrence. In view of the same, the petitioner ought to be discharged.
10.It was further submitted that without looking into the materials in its proper perspective, the Lower Court dismissed the discharge petition by giving reason that whether the petitioners conspired together or taken part in the elimination of Bhuvaneshwaran can be determined only after recording evidence of witnesses in this case, after completion of the trial. At the stage of framing of charges, the prayer for discharge cannot be considered and dismissed the discharge petition. Further, referring to the statement of Siva, father of the deceased, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, dismissed the discharge petition. Hence, the order of the Lower Court is to be set aside. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 He also relied upon the judgment of Saju Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 1 SCC 378 PK.Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142 State of Punjab Vs. Bittu and Another (2016) 15 SCC 566. Ghulam Sabar Vs. State of Bhira State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Gruru Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 782.
11.The learned Special Public Prosecutor of CBI filed a counter and submitted that as per the statement of LW.1/ Maheswaran the deceased has informed him about the threat made by A11/first petitioner and A12/second petitioner and other accused viz., A3 and A2; such threats were made in public view to caution and deter all the residents of that.
12.LW.6, LW.7, LW.14, LW.15, LW.31, LW.33 statements, clearly prove the involvement and complicity of the petitioners. LW.3, Yoga, is the wife of the deceased/Bhuvaneswaran who states about the threat faced by her husband to settle the dispute with the first petitioner. LW.6, states about deceased/Bhuvaneshwaran seeking support of communist party and holding several agitations, and protest against A1/A.Syed Ibrahim @ Bhai, A12/TRC.Venkatesh @ Gowrishankar, A11/MLA/Ranganathan, Amosh, Amma Jeyam and several others. He clearly states that though several https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 complaints were lodged, the police came to the scene of occurrence on several occasions, but no action was taken against A.Syed Ibrahim @ Bhai and other offenderes, since they were backed by Ranganathan MLA.
13.LW.7, clearly stated about the deceased/Bhuvaneswaran giving various complaints against these petitioners to take action against the petitioners. In the year 2011, several agitations have been organized against A1 and A11, a hunger strike was also held.
14.LW.11/Special Sub-Inspector of Police, at T-7, Tank Factory Police Station, Avadi states about the complaint given by Veerapuram New Colony Welfare Association against these petitioners and others. He also states that earlier the complaint was closed on the ground that the petitioners failed to appear. From the file, it is seen that no such remarks are made, Petition No.193 of 2010; Petition No.184 of 2010; Petition No.143 of 2010; Petition No.155 of 2010 were filed. In CSR.No.148 of 2011, it is recorded that there was a never-ending dispute between the accused group and others over the property in Morai Village.
15.LW.12/Amos @ Arumugam is doing real estate brokering and also https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 11 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 owning a wholesale textile shop at Parry's Corner. He had come in contact with these two petitioners and he was given a free site to the extent of 500 sq.ft near New Kanniammal Nagar, Morai Village. He was to keep watch over the developments made in the village and also inform the activities of A1. Further, states about the accused, discussing about the problems created by the deceased creating problem and A1 informed that deceased was the cause and reason in sending A11 & A12 to prison and deceased to be taught lesson.
16.LW.15/Chitra Nambi, who was doing vermiculture business has lodged a complaint at T7, Tan Factory Police Station on the activities of the petitioners in threatening her to pay money as demanded by them, but the same was not accepted.
17.LW.19/V.S.Kalimuthu, asked to be a power of attorney to one Rajendra Raja. He is only a name lender and he would state that whenever he is called, he could be present and execute the documents and receive the proceeds on behalf of the second petitioner and sale proceeds would be received by A12.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021
18.LW.22/Venkatesan @ Paul, who is the site incharge of the construction company, residing at Morai Village had objected for encroaching cremation area. Immediately, he was called, threatened by the petitioners. The second petitioner is the personal assistant of the first petitioner, which is not denied, both moved and acted in tandem.
19.LW.28/Sathyaprasad, uncle Mr.Angineedu Prasad, the erstwhile owner of the property states about the petitioners forcing one Ayisha Real Estates who are the purchaser of a portion of the property to settle in favour of petitioners.
20.LW.29/ managing and looking after the property affairs of M/s.Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Firm, states about these petitioners approaching one Rajendra Rajan, belonging to Morai Village and declaring himself as an owner of the land, and various litigations initiated by these people. The role played by the petitioners in taking over the company property are clearly stated.
21.LW.31/Thilagavathi, who is the wife of LW.6/Dasarthan, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 corroborates the statements that the Plot owners LW.31 & LW.33, threatened by the petitioners. The statements of each of the witness corroborate with each other and there are sufficient materials to proceed against these petitioners, he referred to the narration in the final report, which reads as follows:-
“18. From the perusal of above mentioned evidence, it can be clearly established the role of A-11 Ranganathan and A-12 T.R.C. Venkatesh @ Gowrishankar in the commission of murder. Even though there was no direct evidence against A-11 Ranganathan for the offence of Criminal conspiracy but there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of criminal conspiracy by way of motive, enmity and other circumstances which would reveal the association of A-11 and A-12 with A-1 to A-10 in committing the murder of Deceased Bhuvaneswaran, with regard to the land issues existing at Morai Village. The motive, previous and subsequent of conduct of the A-11 Ranganathan and A-12 T.R.C. Venkatesh @ Gowrishankar prior to the commission of murder would clearly establish the offence of criminal conspiracy in committing the murder of deceased Bhuvaneswaran which is an admissible piece of evidence in the court of law u/s 8 of IEA.” and “14. It is further submitted that the evidence in form of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 14 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 statements of Lws-1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 clearly establish the roles of petitioners/appellants/A-11 and A-12 in th commission of murder of the deceased. Even though there is no direct evidence against the petitioners/appellants/A-11 an A-12 for the offence of criminal conspiracy but there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of criminal conspiracy by the way of motive, enmity and other circumstances which would reveal the association of petitioners/appellants/A-11 and A-12 with A-1 to A-10 in committing the murder of the deceased, with regard to the land issues existing at Morai Village. The motive, previous and subsequent conduct of petitioners A-11 and A-12 prior to the commission of murder would clearly establish the offence of criminal conspiracy in committing the murder of the deceased Bhuvaneshwaran which is an admissible piece of evidence in the court of law u/s 8 of IEA.
15.The petitioners/appellants/A-11 and A-12 filed discharge petition vide. Crl.MP.No.3271 of 2020 before the trial court on same grounds and the trial court has rightly dismissed the discharge petition vide order dated 25.01.2021 as prima facie case has been made out against petitioners/appellants/A-11 and A-12.
16.Therefore it is further humbly submitted that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and at this stage it is sufficient to see whether prima facie case is made out to proceed. He relied on the following case laws of the Apex Court, wherein observation are as follows:-
S.No Citation Gist of the Principle Laid down
1 1979 SSC(Crl) Supdt “At the time of framing of charges,
and Remembrancer of the truth, veracity and effect of the Legal Affairs West evidence should not be Bengal Vs Anil Kumar meticulously judged. The Bunja (3 member Bench Magistrate has to consider the of Supreme Court (para existence of prima facie ingredients no.18) of the offence on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the Investigating Police Officer” 2 1999 SCC (Crl) 373 “At the time of framing charge, State Anti-Corruption Court is required to consider only Bureau Vs. Police Report and documents sent P.Suryaprakasam with it u/section 173 Cr.P.C.” 3 2000 SCC (Crl) 944 “It is not required to appreciate the State of M.P. Vs evidence and arrive at the S.B.Johari. (Paras no.4,5 conclusion that the materials & 6) produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused” 4 2001 Crl.L.J. 111 (SC) “Hearing lengthy arguments and State (CBI) Vs passing elaborate orders not S.Bangarappa (Paras necessary while deciding to frame no.4, 20, 21 & 22) charges, the Court should not evaluate the evidence by deciding https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 S.No Citation Gist of the Principle Laid down its worth and credibility” Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.
22.Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner was an MLA, an elected representative. The second petitioner, acted as his personal assistant (PA). Further, there is a running dispute with regard to the development of layout and selling of Plots in Morai Village between the deceased and A1. In this case, murder took place in bright daylight in public view that too, at that time, when the deceased was returning along with his school going daughter/LW.4. It is a gruesome murder that had taken place in a public place in public view. The defacto complainant/Siva, who is the father of the deceased, had clearly mentioned the name of the petitioners in the First Information Report, filed before the Korattur Police Station. The petitioners are named as accused.
23.The petitioners claim that during the relevant point of time, they were detained in prison, pursuant to their detention under the Act,14. Further, statement of LW.38 is that from the prison visitors register, it was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 found that none of the accused herein had visited the petitioners during the relevant time. It cannot be countenanced for the simple reason the petitioner were only kept detained in prison as preventive detention prisoners, who are free to move within the prison, meet visitors and advocates without restrictions. They were not in solitary confinement with any restrictions. The petitioners had easy access and communication with others, which is not disputed. When a well orchestrated offence has been committed, modus operandi and the conspiracy is done in secrecy by exchange of communications, instructions, which are to be inferred, not found in open. There are evidence to show that the petitioners acted in tandem A11 & A12, visited Morai Village, threatened the Plot owners and Association members and others in support of A1. A1 was given face and projected as realtor, it is the petitioners, the force and fulcrum to take away the layout from the deceased. Both A11 & A12 acted in tandem, and they are in separable. The petitioners have jointly filed discharge petition. Now the revision case challenging the same is filed by them together, they are inseparable. The petitioners now cannot make a claim to extricate themselves from the act of other accused, that there is no evidence for conspiracy and further, on the ground that on the day of murder, they were in prison. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 18 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021
24.The Inspector of Police of T7, Tan Factory Police Station, had clearly stated about the various complaints received from the deceased as well as from the Association members and others against these petitioners and other accused. The complaints were initially registered. Thereafter it was closed for non-co-operation. From the records it is found otherwise. There are witnesses to prove that the petitioners are very much behind Siva and his son Bhuvaneswaran/deceased. The said Bhuvaneswaran had held Dharna, Hunger strike and also taken the support of the communist party of India, against the petitioners and other accused. Finding that the situation is going out of control, a compromise entered on 01.03.2011. It was only a ploy. The hatred was brewing and conspiracy continued, planning to strike at the right opportunity. Finding that during the period of petitioners' detention in prison, would absolve the petitioners from Murder charge, other accused committed the murder of Bhuvaneswaran. The petitioners detention will not make any difference since the petitioners are the mastermind and conspirators. The murder was committed in broad day light in public place to send the message that the property, layout will be dealt by the accused unhindered as per their plan.
25.The Apex Court, time and again have clearly held that in the case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 19 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 of discharge or quashing the criminal proceedings, it is sufficient to show that there are prima facie material, when it appears to the Court and in its opinion, there are grounds of presumption against the accused committing the offence, it shall frame the charge and at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to look into the relevant materials. Further, in a revision case, this Court has to examine the correctness, legality and proprietary of the order passed by the Trial Court. It would be beneficial to extract the principles laid by the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, hereunder:-
“27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions, i.e., Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be :
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 20 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 21 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a ‘civil wrong’ with no ‘element of criminality’ and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full- fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed with by the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 22 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
[Ref. State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. [(1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283]; Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234]; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36]; Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059]; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
[(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513]; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703]; M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400 : AIR 1998 SC 128]; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497]; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 41 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 634]; Zandu Pharmaceutical https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 23 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Ors. [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]; M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 : AIR 2000 SC 1869]; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & Anr. [(2009) 14 SCC 466 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412]; V.V.S. Rama Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
[(2009) 7 SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 356];
Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & Anr. v. Peddi Ravindra Babu & Anr. [(2009) 11 SCC 203 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297]; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(1987) 1 SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82]; State of Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma & Anr. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 192 : AIR 1991 SC 1260]; Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275]; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh & Anr. [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19]; Savita v. State of Rajasthan [(2005) 12 SCC 338 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 571]; and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC 659 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1361 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1201].
27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.”
26.In view of the above facts and on close analyzation of the Trial Court order, this Court finds that there is nothing to interfere with the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 24 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 findings of the Trial Court. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.
27.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed by confirming the order dated 25.01.2021 in Crl.MP.No.3271 of 2020 in SC.No.34 of 2020 passed by the learned Special Court No.I, for a trial of Criminal Cases related to elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Considering the offence had taken place in the year 2012, the memory of the witnesses would get diminished.
Further, delay in Trial would only enure to the benefit of the accused. In view of the same, the Trial Court to give top priority and to conclude the Trial, within a stipulated time preferably, within a period of six months after commencement of normal functioning of Court and to report compliance.
.06.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order klt https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 25 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 To
1.The Special Court No.I, for trial of Criminal Cases related to elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB, Chennai – 600 090.
3.The Special Public Prosecutor, CBI cases, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 26 /27 Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
klt PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.RC.No.209 of 2021 and Crl.MP.No.4836 & 4837 of 2021 .06.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 27 /27