Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: aruppukottai in Lieutenant Colonel. S.Ganesan (Rtd) vs The Inspector Of Police on 26 April, 2018Matching Fragments
The petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.20970 of 2013 seeks quashing of C.C.No.430 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai. The petitioners in Crl.OP(MD)No.4423 of 2015 seeks quashing of C.C.No.207 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.
2. The petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.20970 of 2013, Thiru.Ganesan, is a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Indian Army. He was serving as a Captain in Jammu & Kashmir in the year 2004. He had come to his native place on 07.05.2004 to see his newly born child. At about 11 p.m., on the same date, when he was returning home, he saw his friends standing in front of Hotel Dhanalakshmi in Aruppukottai. He parked his car and came to exchange pleasantries with his friends. It was election time. The police had been conducting inspection. The second respondent in Crl.OP.(MD)No.20970 of 2013 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police. He was coming down from the lodge upstairs and when he coming down, he bumped against Ganesan's friends. Thiru.Ganesan appeared to have asked the police officials as to why he could not see somebody standing. This verbal quarrel soon snow balled into a full scale assault. One, Ramamoorthy, who is a practising Advocate and who happened to be present, rushed and told the police that Thiru.Ganesan was a Captain in the Indian Army. In order to protect himself, Thiru.Ganesan rushed into the kitchen and brought a kitchen utensil to protect himself. But, he was outnumbered by the police, who were more than ten in number.
3. According to Thiru.Ganesan, he was brutally assaulted and severally beaten. He suffered injuries all over and he was dragged on the road and thrown to the jeep and taken to the police station. He was unconscious. By the time the jeep reached the police station, Thiru.Ganesan regained consciousness and he managed to escape. He took treatment in a private hospital and then was admitted in the Military Hospital, Chennai.
4. The police registered a case against Thiru.Ganesan for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 332 & 341 IPC. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.430 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai. In the meanwhile, complaint by the Revenue Divisional Magistrate, Aruppukottai, was taken on file as C.C.No.207 of 2012 against the police personnel. To quash them, these Original Petitions have been filed by the respective accused.
5. Crl.OP(MD)No.4423 of 2015 can be taken up first and disposed of.
6. A learned Judge of this Court (Honourable Mr.Justice.S.Nagamuthu), has, in more than one case (i.e., in Crl.OP.No.20008 of 2013, decided on 19.12.2014; Crl.OP.No.24041 of 2013, decided on 22.12.2014; and Crl.A.(MD)No.123 of 2015, decided on 23.06.2015), held that a private complaint at the instance of the Executive Magistrate is not maintainable. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, this Court has to necessarily quash the private complaint lodged by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, against the police personnel. In this view of the matter, Crl.OP(MD)No.4423 of 2015 stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.207 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai stand quashed.
8. Insofar as Crl.OP(MD)No.20970 of 2013 is concerned, this Court, after going through the entire material on record, forms the inescapable conclusion that the police registered Crime No.366 of 2004 on the file of Aruppukottai Town Police Station only to forestall and deflect the action that maybe initiated by Thiru.Ganesan. It is seen that serious allegations have been made against the police personnel of Panthalkudi Police Station. It is, therefore, absolutely probable that the case lodged by Thiru.Ganesan against the police personnel was not acted upon by Aruppukottai Town Police. A counter case was registered against him at the instance of the Police personnel only to wreck vengeance on Thiru.Ganesan, since he dared to challenge the police. It is improbable that Thiru.Ganesan could have done the acts attributed to him. He was hopelessly outnumbered by the police party. That is why, the National Human Rights Commission gave a direction that compensation should be awarded to Thiru.Ganesan. The Government has since complied with the said order by issuing G.O.Ms.No.232, Public Law and Order Department, dated 22.02.2008.