Madras High Court
S/O.B.Govindaswamy vs State By Inspector Of Police on 30 June, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008
1.M.S.Murthy,
S/o.Munusamy.
2.Movin Thomas,
S/o.Thomas Vincent.
3.A.Joseph Kennedy,
S/o.Anthonysamy.
4.R.J.Jude Adaikala Raj,
S/o.JayaRaj.
5.C.Karikalan,
S/o.Chengan.
6.V.Dev Anand,
S/o.Venugopal.
7.V.Ramanujam,
S/o.K.G.Balakrishnan.
8.K.Paramasivam,
S/o.Kalappan.
9.U.Alexander,
S/o.Uthiraiswamy.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008
10.K.Arul Jothi,
S/o.J.Kuppan.
11.R.Veeramani,
S/o.M.Ramaswamy.
12.K.Ambrose,
S/o.Kulanthaiswamy.
13.A.Mohamad Ansari,
S/o.Ammer Mohideen.
14.B.Noor Mohamad,
S/o.M.D.Bakker.
15.P.Joseph,
S/o.V.Periyanayagaswami.
16.M.Ramakrishnan,
S/o.T.C.Mahalingam.
17.A.Sagaya Raj,
S/o.Arokya Raj.
18.R.Chandrasekar,
S/o.A.C.Ramachandran.
19.S.Balasundaram,
S/o.Shankara Narayanan.
20.P.Karunanidhi,
S/o.Ponnusamy.
21.S.Sathish Kumar,
S/o.P.N.Shanmugam.
22.B.G.Chandrasekaran,
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008
S/o.B.Govindaswamy.
23.C.P.Barathy,
S/o.C.D.Pandiyan.
24.D.Venkatesan,
S/o.M.R.Durairaj.
25.G.Dhinakar,
S/o.Govindaraj.
26.U.Vincentraj,
S/o.Uthiraswamy. ... Petitioners
-Vs.-
1.State by Inspector of Police,
Ennore Police Station,
Chennai.
2.T.N.Sivanantham,
Manager,
I.T.C. Ltd., P.PD Thiruvottiyur,
Printing & Package Division,
Thiruvottiyur, Chennai -19 .. Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397, 401 and 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the order
date 19.09.2007 in Cr.C.M.P.No.776 of 2006 in S.C.No.406 of 2006 on
the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri and set aside the same.
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Raju Sharma,
For P1, P2, P4, P6, P8 to P13, P15 to
P20
Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar,
for P5, P14, P21 and P26
P7 died.
For Respondents: Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
Government Advocate, for R1
Mr.M.Krishnamurthy, for R2
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the accused in S.C.No.406 of 2006 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri with a prayer to call for the records relating to the order date 19.09.2007 in Cr.C.M.P.No.776 of 2006 in S.C.No.406 of 2006 and set aside the same.
2. The facts of this case is that on 13.11.2001 at 02.30 p.m., the petitioner/accused trespassed into the factory premises of I.T.C. Ltd., Thiruvottiyur. The petitioners formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the first informant and his colleagues and had also damaged the company properties worth several Crores of Rupees. Based on the complaint, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.565 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008 of 2001 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 425, 341, 323, 324 read with Section 506(ii) IPC. During the course of the investigation, the first respondent/complainant had examined witnesses and had also recorded confession from the accused. Thereafter, final report has been filed against the present petitioners for having committed offences under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 341, 395, 427, 506(ii), 307 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPDD Act and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.406 of 2006.
3. Pending trial, the Government of Tamil Nadu Public Department (Law and Order) had passed G.O.No.4814 dated 13.11.2006 stating that the case had to be withdrawn “in public interest”. Accordingly, the public prosecutor filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.776 of 2006 under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the fact that public interest has been involved in the case. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have filed the present revision.
4. When the revision petition came up for consideration before this 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008 Court on 13.02.2014, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and perusing the materials available on record, held as below:
"6. It is seen that the workers have joined together and raised an industrial dispute for non payment of the wages and other related disputes. It is also seen that mass bargain has been placed before the Management. Thereafter, in order to avoid displeasure among the workers, the Government decided to withdraw the case. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.4814, Public (Law and Order) Department, dated 13.11.2006 directing the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case on the ground of Public Interest. The petition under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., has also been filed by the first respondent/complainant to withdraw the case. However, the trial Court expected some thing more by way of documents other than the said G.O. and dismissed the petition.
7. Since the Government itself passed a G.O. expressing opinion to withdraw the case on account of public interest, I am of the view that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the withdrawal petition. I do not find any reason to reject the said G.O. Therefore, the order 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008 dated 19.09.2007 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri, is set aside and the first respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the case in the light of the Government Order cited above."
5. Thereafter an application was filed by the de facto complainant stating that he was not represented on the date of the order passed by this Court on 13.02.2014 in Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008 and therefore the said order may be recalled. This Court, on being convinced by the said submissions and considering the legal issues raised in the revision petition and also expecting that the revision petitioner will assist the Court to settle the issue whether the complaint can be withdrawn by the executive order, against the wishes of the de facto complainant restored the criminal revision petition on 21.06.2022 and posted the case for final disposal on 30.06.2022 at 02.15 p.m.
6. However, when the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel representing the de facto complainant/second respondent seeks time on personal ground. This Court revisited the contents of the revision petition, background of the case and the non-cooperation of the de facto 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008 complainant, who failed to conduct the case in spite of affording an opportunity to make their representation by restoring the Revision Petition.
7. There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the public interest referred by the Government in its G.O. will prevail upon the private interest, unless and until it affects the fundamental rights of any individual adversely. Insofar as this case is concerned, an unrest in the industry has led to filing the complaint and on completion of investigation, final report filed and taken cognizance by the Session Court in S.C.No.406 of 2006.
8. The occurrence alleged has taken place on 13.11.2001, after 21 years whether the withdrawal of the complaint is the interest of public has to be tested. The reason assigned by the Government for withdrawing the prosecution on the ground of public interest is strengthened by efflux of time and the disinterest shown by the de facto complainant in pursuing the matter, in spite of restoring the Criminal Revision Petition exclusive to 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008 hear their submissions.
9. In the light of above fact, this Court reiterates the findings of this Court dated 13.02.2004 and allow this Revision Petition.
30.06.2022 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No nsa To
1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri
2. The Inspector of Police, Ennore Police Station, Chennai.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., nsa Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2008 30.06.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis