P. Ramadoss v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 and Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14998 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 1.P.Ramadoss 2.P.Gopal 3.M.Murugesan 4.M.Rajaram ... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11467 of 2014 Accused 49, 50, 74, 75 1.Uppukara Thangavel 2.Ravi 3.Sekar 4.Ganesan 5.Murugan 6.Mariappan 7.Samiraj 8.Ramesh 9.Selvam 10.Palanisamy, S/o.Kaliappan 11.Muththamil 12.Velu 13.Arumugam 14.Pandi 15.Palanisamy, S/o.Chinnaiyan 16.Pandiyarajan 17.Kalimuthu 18.Periya Pandi 19.Sundara Pandi 20.Eeswaran 21.Oppuravu @ Subramani 22.Kumar 23.Sivamani 24.Deivendran 25.Irulan 26.Sivasubramani 27.Thiyagu 28.Kumar 29.Selvam 30.Prasanth 31.Raja 32.Veeramani 1/5
33.Lakshmanan 34.Mottaiyan 35.Paulraj 36.Selvam 37.Chinna Pandi 38.Rajapandi 39.Paraman 40.Murugan 41.Pandi 42.Periya Pandi @ Asaiyalagan 43.Muniyandi 44.Chellapandi 45.Rajamani 46.Muthupandi 47.Rajapandi 48.Nagaiah 49.Kamaraj 50.Alaguraj 51.Alagumani, S/o.Nagesh @ Ramasamy 52.Alagumani, S/o.Karuppanan 53.Ammukutti @ Pandian 54.Raman 55.Alagumani, S/o.Mottaiyandi 56.KUmar 57.Muthu Kamatchi 58.Vadivelu 59.Alaguraj, S/o.Pandi 60.Murugesan 61.Pandi 62.Silambarasan 63.Sekar 64.Jeeva 65.Chinnasamy 66.Nagaraj 67.Nehru 68.Pitchaimani 69.Rengan 70.Suresh 71.Gandhi 72.Karuppiah 73.Kulanthai Vel @ Katcha 74.Karutha Pandi 75.Palanisamy, S/o.Nagan 76.Ravi 77.Murugesan 78.Deivam 79.Periya Muniyandi @ Rajamani @ Muniyandi 80.China Muniyandi 81.Pathivu 82.Karuthapandi 83.Murugan 2/5
84.A.Pandi 85.Murugaiah 86.Paraman, (Millitary) 87.Shanmugam 88.Nagesh @ Ramasamy 89.Chakkarai Petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14998 of 2015 Accused 1 to 47, 51 to 53, 56 to 73, 76, 78 to 85, 87 to 93, 95 to 97, 99, 102 & 103 Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Inspector of Police, Devathanapatti Police Station, Incharge Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District.
(Crime No.202/2007) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.Rameshkumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Devathanapatti Police Station, Incharge Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District.
... Respondent/Defacto Complainant in both Crl.O.Ps Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in P.R.C.No.33 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
(in both Crl.O.Ps) For Petitioners : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 : No appearance for R2 COMMON O R D E R These criminal original petitions have been filed to quash the committal proceedings in P.R.C.No.33 of 2008, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District. 2.The defacto complainant in this case is the Sub Inspector of Police, Devathanapatti Police Station. Crime No.202 of 2007 was registered on 07.10.2007 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 353 and 307 of I.P.C. and final report came to be filed. Cognizance of the offences was taken. Since the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., it is triable by the Sessions Court. The case was taken up for committal. At this stage, these criminal original petitions have been filed to quash the impugned proceedings. 3.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3/5
4.The case of the prosecution is that when the Mariamman temple Festival was conducted from 02.10.2007 to 04.10.2007, dispute arose among the devotees belonging to Pallar community. The Devotees belong to Devathanapatti colony and Sinduvampatti colony. One group stated that the other group should not participate in the temple festival. Since the two groups clashed between themselves, the police resorted to lathi charge. Since it was not possible to bring the crowd under control, the police fired four bullets in the air. According to the prosecution, the devotees in the group attempted to kill the police men and also prevented them from discharging their duties.
5.In the FIR no one has been named individually. The FIR states that about 300 persons belonging to Devathanapatti and 200 persons belong to Sinduvampatti had formed an unlawful assembly. When the final report was filed 103 persons were chosen as accused. Even though in the final report it is claimed that the crowd attempted to attack the police with deadly weapons, none of the police suffered even minor injury.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioners would claim that two other cases were registered against the petitioners and that both the cases ended in acquittal. It is obvious that that a single occurrence that took place in connection with a temple festival had culminated into three prosecutions. This is not in consonance with the decision reported in [(2010) 12 SCC 254, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Others] where it was held as follows :- ''Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station.
It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the Police Officer In- charge of the Police Station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the Diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the First Information Report will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C.'' 7.It is also seen that the occurrence had taken way back in the year 2007.
we are now in the year of 2019. Almost full 12 years have elapsed. The issue had witnessed two other criminal cases.
Therefore, continuance of the impugned proceedings will only be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the impugned proceedings stand quashed and these criminal original petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ias To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Devathanapatti Police Station, Theni District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.S.A.AJMAL KHAN, Advocate ( SR-92272[F] dated 16/10/2019 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11467 of and Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14998 of 2015 15.10.2019 SMA/28/02/2020/5P/5C 5/5