Madras High Court
Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss vs State Represented By on 25 March, 2022
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.26711 of 2017
Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
B1-Town Police Station,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
(Crime No.289 of 2014)
2.Mr.P.Gunasekaran,
Tahsildar,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.28 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No. I, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District and quash the same.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 188, 294(b), 341, 353, 171H, 279, 336, 506(i) and Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the 2nd respondent/Election Observer is that, while the petitioner/A1 was engaged in Election campaigning, the other accused who are the cadres belonging to his party, had in violation of promulgatory orders for Election, had formed an unlawful assembly and violated the enforced Election Rules and Regulations and they had hoisted their party flags in their two-wheelers. During the same time, A3 and A9 had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the life and personal safety of others. The further allegation is that when the de-facto complainant had questioned them, A5 to A9 had abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and had prevented him from discharging his official duty and had criminally intimidated him. On the complaint given by the 2 nd respondent/de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.289 of 2014. The 1 st respondent, after completion of investigation, has filed the Final Report and the case was taken up for trial in C.C.No.28 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri for the offences under Sections 147, 188, 294(b), 341, 353, 171H, 279, 336, 506(i) and Section 34 of I.P.C. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/A1 to quash the said proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2016.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a candidate contesting for the Election to the Parliamentary Constituency of Dharmapuri. Other than being a candidate in the Election, he has not committed any offence as alleged in the final report. Even as per the complaint, the petitioner was stated to have involved in the Election campaigning and the other accused are stated to have involved in the offence. Even taking into consideration, the entire materials, no averments are available against the petitioner as far as instigating the other accused to commit the alleged offence is concerned. The 1st respondent in the final report, has cited nine witnesses and none of the witnesses have spoken 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis anything about the petitioner or his involvement in the said offences. The petitioner further states that he has been implicated only based on the alleged confession stated to have been recorded from the co-accused while they were in custody. No other legal material is available as against the petitioner. Further, the registration of the case for the offence under Section 148 of IPC is without obtaining necessary permission which is not proper. The other averments are also not made out as against the petitioner and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner shared the common intention with the other accused. He would further submit that the proceedings pending against the petitioner are nothing but abuse of process of law, thereby, he seeks to quash the proceedings.
4. Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was a candidate for the Dharmapuri Parlimentary Constituency during the year 2014. On the last day of campaigning, while the petitioner was campaigning along with the cadres belonging to the petitioner's party, then in violation of the Election Rules, had come in about 100 two-wheelers hoisting their party flags and 2 of the accused have driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the life of 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis people around. When it was questioned by the de-facto complainant, who is the Election Observer, the other accused persons have criminally intimidated and abused him in filthy language. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that though none of the witnesses have spoken about the presence of the petitioner, co-accused A3 and A4 have confessed that they have acted as per the directions of A1. He would fairly concede that other than the confession of A3 and A4 recorded, while they were in custody, there is no other material available against the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.
6.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was a candidate for the Election and that while he was campaigning along with the cadres, the cadres are stated to have violated the Election Rules and when it was questioned by the de- facto complainant, they have abused him and intimidated him. The allegation of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, is also made out against the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis other accused. Further other than the alleged confession of A3 and A4, there is no material stating about the presence of the petitioner and his implication.
7.In this context, it is useful to extract the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P.Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866:
“(i)Where it distinctly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuation of a proceeding for example for want of sanction;
(ii)where the allegation in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii)where the allegation constitutes an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the proceedings pending on the file of the Trial Court as against the petitioner is nothing, but an abuse of process of law and they are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri District are hereby quashed as against the petitioner and the Criminal Original Petitions is allowed.
25.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order rgm/vkr To
1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
2.The Inspector of Police, B1-Town Police Station, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
3.Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Tahsildar, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
rgm/vkr Crl.O.P.No.26711 of 2017 25.03.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis