Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/17929/2019allowed

S. Rajamohan v. The Inspector Of Police

2019-11-29Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.MP(MD)No.10536 of2019 1.S.Rajamohan 2.M.Sarangan

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.10 & 11

-Vs1.The State rep by The Inspector of Police, D1 - Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai.

(Crime No.24 of 2013) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.P.Jeyakumar ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the final report bearing C.C.No.274 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai District, in connection with the Crime No.24 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai District and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits in respect of the Petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.274 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 07.01.2013, at about 11.40 a.m, the petitioners along with the other accused persons assembled and conducted procession from the District Court Campus, Madurai to Goripalayam, while the promulgation order was in force 1/3

and thereby all the accused persons have made public and traffic nuisance. Hence, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 143, 188 and 341 of IPC and the case has been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, in C.C.No.274 of 2015. The said criminal proceedings is under challenge in this criminal original petition. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Further, he submitted that the petitioners' name have not been mentioned in the FIR. But, impleaded at the time of filing final report.

Further, he submitted that there is absolutely no witnesses have spoken about the occurrence and to connect the petitioners, there are no materials to proceed with the trial. When there is no material to proceed with the trial, the petitioners unnecessarily would not have put them an ordeal trial. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings. 4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to proceed with the trial. Further, he would submit that the petitioners are habitual offender by committing this kind of crimes. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent/State and perused the materials available on record. 6.On a perusal of the charge as against the petitioners are concerned, the first respondent levelled the charge under Sections 143, 188 and 341 of IPC, as against the petitioners. It is seen from the charge that on 07.01.2013, at about 11.40 a.m, the petitioners along with the other accused persons assembled and conducted procession from the District Court Campus, Madurai to Goripalayam knowing fully well that the promulgation orders was in force and thereby all the accused persons have made public and traffic nuisance. Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charge against the petitioner. It is also seen from the charge itself that the charges are very simple in nature and trivial. Section 188 reads as follows:

"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be 2/3

punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 7.Considering the above, this Court finds that for the simple charge, the petitioners cannot be put into an ordeal of trial. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners.

8.In view of the above discussions, this criminal original petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.274 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, is quashed as against the petitioners herein. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, D1 - Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai.

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

+1 CC to M/s.S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM, Advocate ( SR-102868[F] dated 02/12/2019 ) and Crl.MP(MD)No.10536 of2019 29.11.2019 JMN(20.12.2019) 3P : 5C 3/3