Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/15624/2019transfer cases to principal seat

Ramar v. The Inspector Of Police

2019-10-24Honourable Mr Justice P.D.Audikesavalu6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.11.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 15624 of 2019 and Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos. 9241 and 9243 of 2019

1. Ramar

2. Santhiran

3. Rengaraj

4. Kamaraj

5. Karunakaran

6. Palanisamy

7. Sellaperumal

8. Prabhakaran

9. Nilavarasan

10. Ramesh

11. Marimuthu

12. Siva M.

13. Selvam A.

14. Balasubramani

15. Kanagaraj

16. Damotharan

17. Nadanamoorthy

18. Subramani

19. Samynathan

20. Annadurai

21. Pitchimani

22. Manikkam

23. Maruthai

24. Rajalingam

25. Rathinam

26. Subramani

27. Rangar

28. Chinnaiyan

29. Ramalingam

30. Seenivasan

31. Lakshmi Narayanan

32. Perumal

33. Krishnamoorthy

34. Elangovan

35. Sakthivel

36. Gopinath

37. Bakkiaraj

38. Kuppamuthu

39. Vetrivel

40. Muniyappan

41. Ramesh

42. Rajendran

43. Ramasamy

44. Palaniyandi

45. Veerappan

46. Chinnadurai

47. Govinthasamy

48. Karuppasamy

49. Seerangan

50. Sellaganesan

51. Ramar

52. Krishnan

53. Sivakumar

54. Manikkam

55. Velusamy

56. Chinnadhurai

57. Murugesan

48. Maruthairaj

59. Elankovan

60. Thangaraj

61. Perumal

62. Sakthivel

63. Sasikumar

64. Ayyar

65. Thangaraj

66. Selvam

67. Thangavel

68. Ponnusamy

69. Karuppasamy

70. Palaniyappan

71. Palaniyappan

72. Rajkumar

73. Koyilan

74. Palaniyappan

75. Vadivel

76. Mahalingam

77. Subramaniayan

78. Sellamani

79. Ramasamy

80. Balasuubramani

81. Kalimuthu

82. Akkim

83. Krishnamoorthy

84. Pon Periyasamy

85. Palanisamy

86. Ponnampalam

87. Thangavel

88. Albonsh

89. Ponnar

90. Malaiyalam

91. Karuppannan

92. Santhanam

93. Manogaran

94. Murugesan

95. Periyasamy

96. Emanuvel

97. Palanivel

98. Maruthu

99. Jarlash

100. Rajkumar

101. Kanagraj

102. Ponnampalam

103. Rajamanikkam

104. Perumal

105. Kuppamuthu

106. Thangaraj

107. Sampathkumar

108. Subramani

109. Ponnusamy

110. Arumugam

111. Balasubramani

112. Arumugam

113. Muthukrishnan

114. Kumar

115. Annavi

116. Manivel

117. Kanthasamy

118. Moganthash

119. Pandiyan

120. Arumugam

121. Manikkam

122. Ragavan

123. Nadarajan

124. Rasu Perumal

125. Karuppasamy

126. Gandhi

127. Karthigeyan

128. Palaniyappan

129. Selvaraj

130. Palanisamy

131. Palaniyappan

132. Mahamuni

133. Krishnan

134. Premkumar

135. Murugesan

136. Chinnadhurai

137. Bakkiyaraj

138. Maruthai

139. Mahenthiran

140. Devitkannan

141. Pandiyarajan

142. Arumugam

143. Chinnadurai

144. Murugesan

145. Manikandan

146. Periyasamy

147. Kumaresan

148. Rajaram

149. Seenivasan

150. Rajkumar

151. Rengaraj

152. Vengatraman

153. Nagarajan

154. Arumugam

155. Mookkan

156. Rengaraj

157. Rengan

158. Subramani

159. Ramaya

160. Sownthirrajan

161. Senthilram

162. Manikkam

163. Thandavaprasath

164. Jeyapal

165. Ravisanthiran

166. Raman

167. Mohan

168. Sevanthi

169. Kumar

170. Palaniyandi

171. Subramani

172. Rakkan

173. Mani

174. Palanimuthu

175. Ramamoorthy

176. Baburaj

177. Raja

178. Bashkar

179. Nanthakumar

180. Sivakumar

181. Sangan

182. Balakrishnan ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 182 -vsThe State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Thangamalai Police Station, Karur District, (Crime No. 128/2017) ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in S.T.C. No. 1724/2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Karur, Karur District and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr. S. Kumaradevan for Mr. M. Bindran

For Respondent : Mr. G. Raman, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

Heard S. Kumaradevan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. G. Raman, Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2.

The Petitioners have preferred this Petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the charge-sheet in S.T.C. No. 1724 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Karur, Karur District.

According to that charge-sheet, in view of the prohibitory orders under Section 30(2) of Police Act, whatever be the reasons, no public meeting or demonstration or rally could be conducted in the areas falling under the jurisdiction of Thogaimalai Police Station, but the Petitioners at about 10.00 a.m. on 13.03.2017 without obtaining permission have conducted demonstrations in front of the Fair Price Shops at R.T. Malai, Puzhutheri, Valiyampatti, Kavalkaranpatti, P. Udaiyampatti, Keeranur, Balasamuthirapatti, Chinnareddipatti, Vazhaikinam, Goodalur, Kalladai, Keezhaveliyur, Thogaimalai, Kazhugoor falling under the jurisdiction of Thogamalai Police Station and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4.

It has been held by this Court in Jeevanandham -vs- State [2018-2-L.W. (Crl.) 606] that by virtue of Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Police Officer cannot register any First Information Report in respect of an offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and he could only exercise the powers conferred under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for preventive action and thereafter inform the same to the concerned public servant, who has been authorised to give complaint in writing before the jurisdictional Magistrate in that regard.

That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohan Lal -vs- State of Punjab [(2018) 17 SCC 627] has declared that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. It is borne out from the records of this case that the Police Officer, viz., Mr. Suresh Kumar, Inspector of Police, Thogamalai Police Station, has not only registered the First Information Report, but also filed the chargesheet after investigation, and that too, without following the mandatory procedure, which vitiates the proceedings on those grounds.

Insofar as the charge under Section 143 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is concerned, it is based upon the commission of the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and as such, it cannot independently survive so as to prosecute the Petitioners only for that charge. The same view has been expressed by this Court in K.Adaikkalam -vs- State [1993-1-L.W. (Crl.) 650]. 6.

It emerges from the foregoing discussion that the Petitioners have made out a case that the intervention of this Court is necessary to abort the impugned prosecution which cannot ultimately succeed. Accordingly, the prosecution of Petitioners under Sections 143 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot be sustained and the charge-sheet in S.T.C. No. 1724 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Karur, Karur District, is quashed.

In fine, the Petition is ordered on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur, Karur District.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thogamalai Police Station, Karur District.

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

Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 15624 of 2019 22.11.2019 vjt/sj SDS (02.06.2020) 6P-4C