Ramu @ S.M. Bhuvaneshwaran, v. The State Rep. By The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2021 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Crl.O.P.No. 9874 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.5203 of 2016 1.Ramu @ S.M. Bhuvaneshwaran/A3 2.Siva @ Sivakumar/A4 3.Sundarrajan/A6 4.Ditto @ Dittoraj/A7 ... Petitioners
Versus
The State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, T-13, Kundrathur Police Station, Chennai - 600 069 (Ref. Cr.No.908/2015 dated 01.10.2015) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.1 of 2016 on the file of District MunsifCum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur and quash the same. For Petitioners :
Mr.C.Arun Kumar For Respondent :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Counsel for Govt. of TN (Criminal Side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2016 pending on the file of District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur, which has been filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 326 and 506(ii) IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Kanniyappan lodged a complaint with the respondent police against the petitioners and three others states that on 01.10.2015, at
about 7.00 a.m. three persons namely Subash, Praveen and Silambarasan, all are the sons of a relative of the de-facto complainant were returning to their home after having completed their prayer at a temple and they were having a casual discussion. At that time, the accused and three others misunderstanding that the three persons were talking about them, picked up a wordy altercation with the relatives of the de-facto complainant.
Thereafter, the accused persons attacked the de-facto complainant's group with casuarina logs and iron rods. Out of them, two sustained simple injuries and one was sustained severe injury. During the affray, one Jayasankar, who is the brother of the de-facto complainant, attempted to rescue the defacto complainant's group, in which, he was grievously hurt and the accused persons criminally intimidated and verbally abused the defacto complainant's group. Moreover, the accused threatened to kill the defacto complainant's group. Thereafter, the injured persons were admitted in Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai, and in this regard, a complaint was lodged with the respondent police. Based on which, the respondent police registered an FIR and subsequently, filed charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C.No.1 of 2016.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was some dispute between two groups belonging to the same political party and they were attacking each other as well as both the group members sustained injuries. Hence, they preferred complaint against each other. Based on which, First Information Reports have been registered against them and thereafter, charge sheets have also been filed. He would further submit that on 01.10.2015, the petitioners along with other accused persons abused filthy language and assaulted the defacto complainant's group. Since there is a political dispute between the two groups, cases have been registered against each other. Hence, the learned counsel prays to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2016 before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Kumar and Ors v. State and Ors in Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017, dated 16.08.2019, (ii) P.Jaipal and Ors. v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, (iii) Kriuthika v. The State and Ors in Crl.O.P.Nos.25782 and of 2017, dated 22.11.2019 and (iv) Sakkarai Ramaswamy v. Alangara Muni and Ors, reported in 1990 L.W. (Crl.) P.151.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that 21 witnesses have been examined and the case in counter 14 witnesses have been
examined and charge sheet has also been filed in both the cases. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.
5.I have considered the rival submission of the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that there was some political rivalry between the two groups. This case is a case in counter. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet and final report have also been filed before the learned District Munsif-cum -Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 326 and 506(ii) IPC against the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the charge sheet filed against the petitioners is liable to be quashed only on the ground of violation of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order 588-A.
7.The Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order 588-A envisages the mode, in which, the Investigating Officer is required to handle the investigation in the case and in the counter case, The two options available under the said order viz., (i) to charge the case where the accused were aggressors or (ii) to refer both the cases if he should find them untrue.
8. The third circumstance is when the Investigating Officer finds that it is not possible for him to have a choice of either of the courses viz., to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor of the District and act accordingly. In other words, laying of a charge sheet in both the cases would be permissible, only on an opinion rendered by the Public Prosecutor.
9. The Investigating Officer is also required to exhibit the counter complaint in the Court and also to prove the medical certificate of the persons wounded on the opposite side.
10. In the instant cases, the Investigating Officer had chosen to file a charge sheet in both the complaints arising out of the same incident and a perusal of such charge sheet does not reveal that the opinion of the Public Prosecutor of the District was obtained. Likewise, the medical certificate of the persons wounded on the opposite side is also not reflected in the said charge sheet. Furthermore, each of the charge sheet do not refer to the counter complaint made. All these aspects are in violation of the Order 588-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order and the proceedings are hereby liable to be set aside.
11. In the light of the above submissions, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2016 on the file of District Munsif -CumJudicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar msm To 1.The Inspector of Police, T-13, Kundrathur Police Station, Chennai - 600 069 (Ref. Cr.No.908/2015 dated 01.10.2015) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
3.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur.
+2ccs to Mr.C.Arun Kumar, Advocate SR. No.40896 Crl.O.P.No. 9874 of 2016 NRL (CO) PR (19/01/2022)