P.Ramadoss v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.10.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.4807 of 2021 P.Ramadoss ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State rep by, Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari Police Station, Vellore District.

2. Stanly John

3. M.Sudhakar

4. N.Pugazhendi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the case in C.C.No.193/2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore and transfer the same to the file of Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District or any other Court in Kancheepuram District to try same, within time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 to R4 : Mr.N.Sudharsan

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.193 of 2020 from the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore and transfer the same to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District or any other Court in Kancheepuram District.

2.The petitioner lodged a compliant to the 1st respondent Police against the respondents 2 to 4 and the same was registered in Crime No.334 of 2018, for offence under Sections

294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore for offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 326 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 2 to 4 claiming to be Advocates, had committed several offences and the cases pending against them are extracted as follows:- S.No.

Name of the Police Station Crime No.

Section Name of the Accused Sathuvachari P.S 35/2008 120(b), 381, 406, 420, 448, 468, 109 of IPC Pugazendhi (A3), Advocate, Vellore Sathuvachari P.S 478/2008 341, 323, 324, 506(i) of IPC Pugazendhi, Sudhakar Advocates, Vellore Sathuvachari P.S 404/1999 379 IPC apart from other cases Stanley John (A1), Advocate, Vellore Sathuvachari P.S 98/2009 285 of IPC Pugazendhi (A3), Advocate, Vellore Sathuvachari P.S 104/2009 448, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 301 PPD Act Pugazendhi (A3), Advocate, Vellore Sathuvachari P.S 400/2006 420 of IPC Pugazendhi (A3), Advocate, Vellore Sathuvachari P.S 334/2018 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC Stanley John (A1), Pugazhenghi (A3), Sudhakar, Raviraman and Krishnamurthy Sathuvachari P.S 35/2012 Pugazenthdhi (A3) Advocate, Vellore Sathuvachari P.S 36/2012 Pugazenthdhi (A3) Advocate, Vellore

S.No.

Name of the Police Station Crime No.

Section Name of the Accused Sathuvachari P.S 324/2007 147, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC Pugazendhi (A3) Advocate and others Sathuvachari P.S 371/2019 3(A) of TN Town Act, Stanley John (A1) 4.The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents 2 to 4 took advantage of their position as Advocate, has been dragging on the trial. Though the final report filed on 29.03.2019, it got numbered in the year 2020 and thereafter, the respondents 2 to 4 not regularly appeared before the trial Court and the case is kept pending at the stage of framing of charges. Now, with great difficulty, the trial is progressing and the chief examination of PW1 is going on. While being so, the respondents 2 to 4 are giving unnecessary pressure and threat to the petitioner whenever he appearing before the trial Court in Vellore.

Due to which, the petitioner is unable to follow the case in Vellore and there is life threat to him, since the respondents 2 to 4 are practicing Advocate in Vellore Court. 5.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed affidavit and sought for transfer of the proceedings to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District or any other Court in Kancheepuram District.

6.The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the petitioner is making bald allegations against the respondents 2 to 4 without any material. If such things are allowed, several petitions will be filed like this in future. This Court in similar cases had held that the Advocates are to be protected from false allegations, since they are fighting for the rights of the public in annoyance of the Police and other Law Enforcing Agencies. Hence, the rights and privileges of the Advocate to be safeguarded. In this case, the petitioner has made false allegations against the respondents 2 to 4, who are Advocates practicing in Vellore District. He further submitted that against the respondents 2 to 4 charges have been framed by the trial Court.

7.In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Captain Amarinder Singh Versus Prakash Singh Badal and others reported in 2009 6 SCC

260". In this case, the petitioner had given list of cases against the respondents 2 to 4.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that in this case, the 1st respondent Police on receipt of the complaint, registered an FIR in Crime No.334 of 2018 against one person. During investigation, the involvement of the other accused came into light and hence, they were also arrayed as accused in this case. During the course of investigation, the 1st respondent Police examined 17 witnesses and collected documents. Now, the case is at the stage of trial and the witnesses to be summoned and within a time frame, the trial would be completed. 9.At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 3 & 4 have filed quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.3341 of 2021 before this Court and this Court, by order, dated 27.02.2021 dismissed the same and dispensed with their personal appearance on all hearing dates except for the dates whenever their appearance is necessary. Hence, the petitioner's apprehension that he would be put to hardship does not arise.

10.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

11.In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the respondents 2 to 4 were involved 11 cases from the year 2008 to 2019. The respondents 2 to 4 are practising Advocate in Vellore Bar Association and also doing other profession which is not in dispute. In the case on hand, the apprehension entertained by the petitioner cannot be construed as unreasonable one. The respondents 2 to 4 are practising Advocates in Vellore Bar Association.

12.Finding that the apprehension of the petitioner is real and reasonable, this Court is inclined to transfer the case in C.C.No.193 of 2020 from the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore to the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpet. 13.In view of the same, this Court directs the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore to transfer the case in C.C.No.193 of 2020 to the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpet within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14.On receipt of the case bundle in C.C.No.193 of 2020, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpet

to complete the trial within a period of six months. 15.The citation referred by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

16.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vv2 To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpet.

3. The Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari Police Station, Vellore District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+2CCs to Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, Advocate, Sr.No.52727 Crl.O.P.No.4807 of 2021 SS (CO) K.RK. (12.11.2021)