Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/6744/2018disposed of

Anthony Viyahappan v. The Superintendent Of Police

2019-03-19Honourable Mr Justice N. Seshasayee3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE CRL.O.P.(MD)No.6744 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.3216 & 3217 of 2018 1.Anthony Viyahappan 2.Michael 3.Jeyakumar 4.Raj 5.Saravanan 6.Kennady 7.Irudhayaraj 8.Baskar 9.Kaliappan 10.Adaikalam 11.Savariraj 12.Ananth 13.Deepak 14.Baskar 15.Soosai 16.Micheal 17.Johnpaul 18.Raja 19.Anthony 20.Desmond 21.Charles 22.Kappal 23.Payas 24.Jose 25.Ruban 26.Jeyaseelan 27.Sebasthiyan 28.John Micheal 29.Charles 30.Raja 31.Prabakaran 32.Aspan 33.Kottar 34.Innasi 35.Charles 36.Selvakumar : Petitioners -Vs1.The Superintendant of Police, O/o. Superintendant of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Alwarkurichi Police Station, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

(Crime No.23 of 2018) : Respondents / Complainants 3.Iyyappan : Respondent No.3 / De facto complainant PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.23 of 2018 dated 28.01.2018 for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 147, 294(b), 290, 291, 353, 323, 506(ii) I.P.C. 1860 and Section 3A of the Town Nuisance Act, 1889 and Section 5(1) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner or in the alternative to transfer the investigation to another Police officer to be appointed by the first respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl. side)

O R D E R

The present petition is laid for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.23 of 2018, dated 28.01.2018, for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 147, 294(b), 290, 291, 353, 323, 506(ii) I.P.C. 1860 and Section 3A of the Town Nuisance Act, 1889 and Section 5(1) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000, on the file of the first respondent Police. 2.The entire occurrence has occurred in a Temple function and the villagers 38 in number have are alleged to have misbehaved with the Sub Inspector of Police.

3.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

4.Since much of the submissions made by rival side pointed to as a scroll to express that laying of petition in the eventuality of final report is being laid against the petitioners, this Court has decided not to labour much and not narrating them. 5.However, broadly speaking there are two versions to the whole incident and it is a literal blame game. However, since the de facto complainant is the Sub Inspector of Police of the same station it may not be appropriate that the Inspector of Police investigate the matter since the petitioners have serious suspicion to the fairness of the investigation that would be carried out.

6.Therefore, this Court directs the Superintendant of Police to entrust the investigation by any other Inspector other than the one now engaged in the investigation and he is also directed to nominate the Deputy Superintendant of Police to oversee the said course of investigation.

7.In view of the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Superintendant of Police, O/o. Superintendant of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Alwarkurichi Police Station, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-55629[F] dated 21/03/2019 ) TSG Order made in CRL.O.P.(MD) No.6744 of 2018 Dated: 19.03.2019 KM/(15.04.2019) 3P 5C