Madras High Court
K.R.Selvarajkumar vs / on 14 July, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 09.07.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.07.2020
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2014
K.R.Selvarajkumar .. Petitioner
in both Crl.OPs
/versus/
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its
Inspector of Police,
Law & Order,
N-2, Kasimedu Police Station,
Kasimedu, Chennai-13,
Crime Nos.510 & 537 of 2014 .... 1st Respondent
in both Crl.OPs
2.Kumar ... 2nd Respondent
in Crl.OP.No.13997 of 2014
2.R.Kirubavathi ... 2nd Respondent
in Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2014
Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482
of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the F.I.R in
Crime Nos.510 and 537 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent herein
and quash the same.
1/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumaran
(in both Crl.OPs.)
For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1 (in both Crl.OPs.)
COMMONORDER
(These cases have been heard through video conference) Since the issue involved in both the First Information Reports are similar, both the Criminal Original Petitions are hereby disposed of by a common order.
2.(i) The petitioner, who is arrayed as A2 in Crime No.510 of 2014, being investigated by the 1st respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 120b, 297 A, 505, 509 IPC, Section 4 of Indecent Representation of Woman Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment and Women Act, 2002.
2/11 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014
(ii) The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.537 of 2014, being investigated by the 1st respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 292 A, 505, 509, 560(i) of IPC r/w 34 of IPC, Section 4 of Indecent Representation of Woman Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment and Women Act, 2002.
3. The gist of the case is that :
(i) The petitioner, who is the resident of Ulaganathapuram, Ennore had grabbed and squattered over the property of one Ganthimathi situated at Door No.15/8, AJ Colony, Kasimedu, Chennai-13. In the said property, the petitioner was running 24 hours legal aid centre, the petitioner taking advantage of being an advocate was violating laws. In the said property, the petitioner's associates used to gather, encroach upon the road and create nuisance by consuming alcohol and threatening the local residents, who questioned the same. On 02.02.2014, Rajalingam, father of the petitioner died at Ulaganathapuram, Ennore, his body was brought to AJ Colony and was kept in the disputed property and during funeral procession without following the usual route. The petitioner had taken the body through all the streets of AJ Colony to prove his 3/11 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014 dominance and control of AJ Colony. When, the petitioner attempted to take the body through the local temple at about 3.30 p.m, where, Mandala Pooja was performed after consecration of the temple and the local residents objected for passing of the dead body through the temple area, a wordy quarrel arose, the petitioner and his brother Thiyagarajan along with others created commotion threw the slippers and thereby, damaged the sanctity of the temple and hurt the religious feeling and sentiments of the residents, for which, a complaint was lodged.
(ii) Further, on 03.02.2014, the local residents held a meeting to discuss about the act of the petitioner, at that time, the petitioner and his group hurled stones and one of the stone hit one Kalyani, who got injured and thereafter, a complaint came to be lodged. Since the local head Parasuraman was acting against the interest of the villagers and was having tactful understanding with the petitioner, the said Parasuraman was removed as local head and in his place one Kumar was made as Village Head. From February, 2014 anonymous letters and handbills pamphlets were circulated spreading tantrums against the local residents.
On 12.04.2014 in the name of Selvamani, letters were sent with 4/11 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014 derogative words to the officials, for which on 16.04.2014, the said Selvamani committed suicide. On 16.04.2014, the said Parasuraman was arrested for derogative remarks and circulation of obscene materials and thereafter, he was granted bail. On 28.04.2014, the local president of Royapuram received a letter, along with obscene pictures depicting AJ Colony woman. Thereafter, on 09.05.2014 at about 5.00 a.m when the defacto complainant in Crime No.537 of 2014 was cleaning and sprinkling water in front of her house, the relatives of the petitioner came in the bike with handbills, which contained naked pictures and handbills were placed in the door steps of each house. The hand bill contained the defacto complainant's name. When the same was questioned by the local residents who attempted to stop the persons distributing the handbills they sped away from the scene of occurrence. The said handbills were similar to the posters which was earlier sent on 28.04.2014 to one Seeman, Sugesan, who is the local leader of Royapuram. Hence, the cases came to be registered.
4. The case in Crime No.510 of 2014 narrates the sequence up to the happenings on 28.04.2014. The averments made in the complaint 5/11 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014 in Crime No.537 of 2014, reproduces the entire complaint of Crime No.510 of 2014, except with the addition of the happenings said to have taken place on 09.05.2014. Both the complaints are almost identical to each other except for a small addition and improvement.
5.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations in Crime Nos.510 of 2014 and 537 of 2014 are one and the same. Further, the Crime No.510 of 2014 was registered on 02.05.2014 and Crime No.537 of 2014 was registered on 09.05.2014. Both the complaints are with malafide attitude of both the 2 nd respondent as well as one Jayaraman, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the first respondent. He further submitted that these two FIR's have been registered against the petitioner to circumvent the order of stay granted by this Court in Crl.OP.Nos.3266 of 2014 and 6193 of 2014 pertaining to Crime Nos.113 of 2014 and 179 of 2014. He further submitted that the petitioner is a physically challenged person and he cannot use both his legs and he is mobilizing by way of wheel chair. He further submitted that the respondent police had violated the police Standing Order 566 by registering the two F.I.R for the same cause of action, the registration 6/11 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014 of Crime No.537 of 2014 was not required, since the allegations are already available in Crime No.510 of 2014, for any subsequent happenings the same can be dealt in the earlier case in Crime No.510 of 2014.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and oths., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, submitted that there can be no second F.I.R and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences and prayed for quashing.
7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent fairly submitted that the major portion of the complaint in Crime No.537 of 2014 are repetition. Earlier in Crime No.510 of 2014, all the happenings are mentioned except for the happenings on 09.05.2014. Both the FIR's are in the stage of investigation and during the investigation the grievance of the petitioner would be taken care. If 7/11 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014 there is no specific allegation and no separate offence is made out in the subsequent F.I.R and if it is found that the second F.I.R is the continuation of the first F.I.R, the same would be addressed according to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
8.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the materials available on record and on bare reading of the F.I.R's in Crime Nos.510 of 2014 and Crime No.537 of 2014, it is clearly seen that except for the lower portion of Pg.No.5 in Crime No.537 of 2014, all other allegations are one and the same, which are made in Crime No.510 of 2014. Further, the Apex Court in the judgment T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and oths., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, categorically held as follows :
“A. Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Ss.154 and 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 & 173 – FIR – There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences – Only information about commission of a cognizable offence which is first 8/11 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014 entered in station house diary by officer in charge of the police station can be regarded as FIR under S.154 – All such subsequent information will be covered by S.162 – Officer in charge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in S.173 – Even if after conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of the FIR and submission of report under S.173(2), the officer in charge of the police station comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court and forward the further evidence, if any collected, with further report or reports under S.173(8).”
9.In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the subsequent F.I.R in Crime No.537 of 2014 alone. The investigating officer in Crime No.510 of 2014 to address the grievance of the complainant in Crime No.537 of 2014 more specifically the happenings on 09.05.2014 while investigating the case in Crime No.510 of 2014. 9/11 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014 Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.537 of 2014 alone is quashed and Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2014 is allowed, with regard to Crl.O.P.No.19997 of 2014 pertaining to Crime No.510 of 2014 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitioners are closed.
14.07.2020
Index : Yes /No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/ Non Speaking order
ms
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Law & Order,
N-2, Kasimedu Police Station,
Kasimedu, Chennai-13.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
10/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
ms
Crl.O.P.Nos.13997 & 14011 of 2014
14.07.2020
11/11
http://www.judis.nic.in