Madras High Court
W.Hansaraj Saxena vs State Through Rep. By on 13 April, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.980 & 3051 of 2016
W.Hansaraj Saxena
S/o.Dharmaraj .... Petitioner/Accused No.8
Vs
State through rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Organised Crime Unit II,
CBCID, Chennai – 600 032.
(Crime No.782 of 2011)
(On the file of R4 Soundarapandianar PS) .... 1st Respondent/Complainant
Sri Nitya Atmaprabhananda
S/o.Late K.R.Narayanasamy,
Manager, Nithyananda Dhyanpeeta
Charitable Trust,
Nityanandapuri,
Bidadi, Kallugopanahalli,
Mysore Road,
Ramnagar District,
Karnataka State. .... 2nd Respondent/De-facto
Complainant
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records in C.C.No.2068 of 2015 now pending on the
file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
For R1 : Mr.S.Rajakumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2068 of 2015 pending on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.782 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 392, 323, 420 & 506(ii) of IPC and after completion of investigation, filed final report as against nine accused persons for the offences under Sections 120B, 384, 385, 386, 392, 342 and 109 of IPC, Section 67 r/w 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016 Act, 1986. The petitioner is arrayed as A8. The allegation as against the petitioner is that the de-facto complainant is the Manager of the Trust belonging to the second respondent and during the month of February, 2010, the first accused alleged to have called him and informed that he is possessing a CD containing obscene videos of Swamy Nithyananda and a female south Indian Actress and the said CD is handed over to him by A2, who was earlier attached to the Trust. Further, A2 and A3, who were also earlier serving in the Trust, had videographed the incidents and conspired with A4 and A5, who are involved in print media, to threaten him for extorting money. It is further alleged in the complaint that A1, with the help of A6, had threatened and assaulted the Ashramates to part with a sum of Rs.5 Lakh and further following the same, A1, on another instance, had taken a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant had approached A7, on the instructions of A1, to stop telecasting the videograph of Swami Nithyananda apprehending the telecast on TV may bring down the reputation of Nithyananda among his believers. A7 had demanded a sum of Rs.60 Lakhs and detained the de-facto complainant in his office on the next day threatened him near Pondy Bazaar Police Station and extorted a Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016 sum of Rs.10 Lakhs. That apart, he also demanded a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs. A7 had made the de-facto complainant to speak to A8 who in turn advised to act according to the instructions of A7. A9 had also threatened the de- facto complainant to part with money.
3. The petitioner is arrayed as A8. The prosecution had examined 55 witnesses and recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the above 55 persons and filed final report. According to the de-facto complainant, the 7th accused had made him to speak with the petitioner, who in turn, without speaking anything over the transaction, had informed to act according to A7 and further when one of the witnesses L.W.6, who is alleged to be the female actress, found to be in a compromising position with Nithyananda in the video attempted to speak to the petitioner, who was by then out of India, had instructed her to act according to the words of her auditor. In order to prove the said allegation, the prosecution mainly relied upon the statements of L.W.31, L.W.32 and L.W.33 who are the employees of Sun TV network to speak about the position of the petitioner in Sun Network.
Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016
4. A perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C of L.W.6 is as follows : “” “2010 khh;r; 2?k; njjp rd; o/tp/apy; khiy 7/30 kzpf;F _epj;ahde;j rhkpa[k; R/ vd;W Jt';Fk; eoifa[k; beUf;fkhf ,Uf;Fk;
fhl;rpfs; rd; o/tp/ bra;jpapy; btsptu
,Ug;gjhf Scrolling rd; o/tp/apy; XoaJ/
clnd ehd; vdJ Mol;lh; jpU/,s';Fkuid
bjhlh;g[ bfhz;nld;/ mthplk; ,J gw;wp cjtp
bra;a[k;go nfl;nld;/ Rkhh; 8/00 kzpf;F
rf;nrdht[ld; bjhlh;g[ bfhz;nld; Mdhy; mth;
nghid vLf;f tpy;iy/ 9/00 kzpastpy;
kPz;Lk; mtiu bjhlh;g[ bfhz;lnghJ jhd;
mbkhpf;fhtpy; ,Ug;gjhft[k;. ,uz;L ehl;fSf;F Kd;g[ Mol;lh; jpU/,s';Fkudplk; ,J rk;ke;jkhf Twpajhft[k;. mth; c';fsplk;
Twtpy;iyah vd;W nfl;lhh;/ ehd; Mol;lh;
jpU/,s';Fkudplk; Vd; ,J gw;wp Twtpy;iy vd;W nfl;nld;/ mjw;F mth; rf;nrdh jz;zp moj;J tpl;L Vnjh brhy;fpwhh; vd;W epidj;njd; mjdhy; ,jid bghpjhf vLj;Jf;bfhs;stpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhh;/”
5. According to the prosecution, the evidence of L.W.6 corroborated by recording the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C from L.W.30, L.W.31, L.W.32 and L.W.33. The statement of L.W.31 is as follows :
“nkw;go rp/o/ia ghh;j;J rf;nc&dh vd;gthplk; bjhiyngrp K:ykhf nkw;go rp/o./apy; eoif u";rpjh kw;Wk; Rthkpcld; gLf;ifaiw fhl;rp rk;ke;jg;gl;l fhl;rp ,Ug;gjhf mtUf;F jfty; bjhptpj;njd;/ nkw;go rp/o/ia bra;jp kw;Wk; xspgug;g[ gphptpw;F ehd; mDg;gpitj;njd;/ Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016 ,J rk;ke;jkhf ntW VJk; vdf;F bjhpahJ/” The statement of L.W.32 is as follows :
“,jid mLj;J khh;r; khjk; 2k; njjp ,ut[ vl;L kzpf;F rd; bra;jp bjhiyfhl;rpapy; me;j rp/o/apy; ,Ue;j rpy Mghr fhl;rpia ePf;fptpl;L Fwpg;gpl;l rpy fhl;rpfis kl;Lk; xspgug;gpndhk;/ mg;nghJ bjhiyngrp K:yk; bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L v';fsplk; nkw;go rp/o/apid btspapl ntz;lhk; vd rpyh; bjhptpj;jhh;fs;/ mt;thW nfl;Lf; bfhz;lth;fspy; eoif khstpfh vd;gtUk; xUth;/ mnj ntiyapy;
fh;dhlfj;jpy; rpy bjhiyf;fhl;rpfspy;
epj;jpahde;j ? u";rpjh rp/o/xspgug;ghd jfty; v';fSf;F fpilf;fg;bgw;wJ/ nkYk; md;iwa jpdk; jkpH; jpdrhp kw;Wk; thu VLfspYk;
epj;jpahde;jh u";rpjh fhl;rpfs; ,lk;
bgw;wpUe;jd/ ,ijaLj;J kWehs; rd; o/tp/
bra;jpfspYk; kw;Wk; rd; ePa[{!;
bjhiyf;fhl;rpapYk; me;j rp/o/ia
xspg;gug;gpndhk;/”
6. The above statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C had been uncontraverted that what is available in the CD and what had been telecasted is not a morphed video. Thus, it is clear that the de-facto complainant being an associate of the second respondent had attempted to throw bald allegations as against the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner had no direct role in the alleged offence and he was not aware as to whether whom he had spoken. In fact, the 7th accused called somebody in his mobile Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016 and informed the de-facto complainant that he is speaking to the petitioner herein, who in turn had informed only to A7 without speaking anything about the occurrence or transactions. Further, L.W.6 also had spoken her auditor, who was examined as L.W.11, in his statement, he has also revealed as follows :
“ehd; brd;id. mz;zhrhiyapYs;s fh!;nkh ghypld; fpsg;gpd; epue;ju cWg;gpdh;/ mg;go m';F bry;Yk; nghJ jpU/rf;nrdht[k;
fh!;nkh ghypld; fpsg;gpw;F tUthh;/ mtUk; fpsg;gpd; epue;ju cWg;gpdh; vd;w Kiwapy;
vdf;F mwpKfk; Vw;gl;lJ/ nkYk; fh!;nkh
ghypld; fpsg;gpy; ele;j xU epfH;r;rpapy;
jpUkjp/u";rpjh fye;J bfhs;Sk; nghJ ehd;
jpU/rf;nrdhit jpUkjp/u";rpjht[f;F mwpKfk; bra;J itj;njd;/ fle;j 2010k; tUlk; khh;r; khjk; 02/03/2010 md;W Rkhh; 15/30 kzpf;F kjpa czt[ Koj;J Xa;btLj;J bfhz;oUf;Fk; nghJ jpUkjp/u";rpjh mtuJ ifg;ngrpapd;
(94440?89282) K:ykhf vdf;F (98400?28615) nghd; bra;J vd;id eyk; tprhhpj;J tpl;L gpwF rd;
otpapd; C.O.O thd jpU/rf;nrdh mth;fspd;
ifg;ngrp vz;iz nfl;lhh;/ ehDk;
jpU/rf;nrdhtpd; ifg;ngrp vz;iz (98400?22021) bfhLj;njd;/ vd;d fhuzk; vd;D nfl;ftpy;iy. Vbdd;why; mth;fsJ bjhHpy;
epkpj;jkhf ,Uf;Fk; vd;W epidj;njd;/
md;iwa jpdnk Rkhh; 19/00 kzpastpy;
tHf;fkhf ehd; rd;epa[{!; bjhiyf;fhl;rp
ghh;j;Jf;bfhz;oUf;Fk; nghJ _ epj;ahde;jh
Rthkp mth;fs; xU bgz;Qqld; Mghrkhf
,Ug;gJ nghd;w tPonah fhl;rpfs;
btspaplg;gl;lJ/”
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016
7. There is also nothing revealed to attract any of the offence as against the petitioner herein as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner has no role to play in the occurrence and no offence has been made out in the revision. Therefore, the entire charges cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and it is liable to be quashed.
8. In view of the above, the proceedings in C.C.No.2068 of 2015 pending on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is hereby quashed as against the petitioner alone. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connect miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.04.2023 Internet:Yes Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/non speaking order Lpp Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Lpp Crl.O.P.No. 1917 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.980 & 3051 of 2016 13.04.2023 Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis