Madras High Court
Sunder Lal vs Sobitha Raj on 28 June, 2018
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.06.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.15421 of 2012
and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2012
1.Sunder Lal
2.Chandra Lal @ Lal ... Petitioners /Accused Nos.1 & 2
Vs.
Sobitha Raj ...Respondent/Complainant
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records
pertaining to the S.C.No.27 of 2012 pending on the file of the Principal
District and Sessions Court of Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and to quash the
same.
!For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan
^For Respondent : Mr.C.Herold Singh
:ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in S.C.No.27 of 2012 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court of Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and to quash the same.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
3.The petitioners are facing trial in S.C.No.27 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Court of Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. It is a private complaint instituted by the respondent herein. It appears that there is a property dispute between the first petitioner and the respondent herein. Allegations of trespass and criminal intimidation had been made by the respondent against the petitioners herein. The matter was forwarded to the Sessions Court, since the respondent has alleged human rights violation at the hands of the accused. The Sessions Court is constituted as the Human Rights Court in terms of Section 12 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1994. The third accused Thiru.Kumar was the Sub-Inspector of Police during the relevant time. It is not the case of the respondent that any F.I.R was registered against him. It is also not his case that he was illegally detained or physically beaten. But, then, his allegation is that the said Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police abused him thereby offending his dignity. He also alleges in his complaint that the said Kumar came to the place and stood by the side of the petitioners. He further threatened the complainant that he would foist a false case against him and put him behind the bars. Since Human Rights violations had been alleged in this case, the same was forwarded to the Sessions Court and taken cognizance in S.C.No.27 of 2012.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that they are not public servants. The offences are triable by the Magistrate Court. Therefore, cognizance of the case against them by the Human Rights Court is not competent.
5.The issue is no longer res integra. A similar issue has already been decided by this Court in Santhosh Hospitals Private Limited represented by its Administrative Officer, S.Chakravarthi, Chennai Vs State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu represented by its Registrar, Chennai and others, reported in (2005) 3 M.L.J. 406. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners are public servants. Therefore, the respondent ought to have prosecuted the petitioners only before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
5.Accordingly, the impugned proceedings in S.C.No.27 of 2012 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court of Kanyakumari at Nagercoil are quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
6.The petitioners are shown as accused along with local Sub-Inspector of Police. The proceedings have been quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, this Court gives liberty to the respondent to file an independent complaint against the petitioners herein before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. When such a complaint is lodged, the same shall be entertained, without reference to limitation. The rights of the petitioners are otherwise left open.
7.The learned counsel on either side further submitted that the issue basically relates to survey and measurement and both are ready to move the local Tahsildar for carrying out survey and for measuring the property. Hence, the parties are given liberty to move the jurisdictional Tahsildar, so that the entire matter can be resolved.
To The Principal District and Sessions Court of Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
.