Karunakaran v. V.Pandi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.12.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1818 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 Karunakaran ... Petitioner/Accused No.4 -vsV.Pandi ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the complaint in Cr.M.P.No.350 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner :Mr.J.Sulathan Basha for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondent :Mr.R.Sureshkumar for M/s.Veera Associates

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner / A4 seeking to quash the private complaint filed by the respondent herein in Cr.M.P.No.350 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.

2.The respondent herein filed a private complaint against eight accused alleging that there was enmity between himself and one Sekar, who is a member of Police and Public Relationship Organization. At the instigation of the said Sekar, he and his wife were taken to the Eriodu Police Station and they were detained illegally and harassed, and their immovable properties were also snatched by the accused. Subsequently, by creating a false complaint, they were remanded to judicial custody. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein has filed a private complaint in Cr.M.P.No.350 of 2010. Now, the 4th accused, who was the Inspector of Police, Crime Records Bureau, has filed the present petition seeking to quash the complaint as against him. 3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions in two fold: (a) The first submission is that the petitioner / A4 was not present in the concerned police station as alleged in the complaint. In support of his contention, he relied upon a letter

issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, dated 20.06.2010, wherein it is stated that the petitioner / A4 was working as an Inspector of Police, Crime Records Bureau, at the relevant point of time and he was not given power to visit and investigate the complaint either in Eriodu Police Station or in Vadamadurai All Women Police Station and thus, he did not visit the said Police Station from 25.10.2008 to 31.10.2008, as alleged in the complaint. The said letter would further go to show that the complaint was lodged only with an ulterior motive of preventing the petitioner from retiring from service.

(b) The second submission is that the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner are reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty as public servant and therefore, under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. appropriate sanction should have been obtained before entertaining the complaint. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complaint lodged by the respondent is liable to be quashed as against the petitioner.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the letter given by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Dindigul that the petitioner was working as an Inspector of Police, Crime Records Bureau, at the relevant point of time and he was not authorised to visit and investigate the complaint in Eriodu Police Station and Vadamadurai All Women Police Station and therefore, he did not visit the said Police station, especially from 25.10.2008 to 31.10.

2008, is concerned, this Court is of the view that it is a matter of evidence and the same could be established only during the course of trial. 6.So far as the second contention is concerned, it is settled law that all the acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot, as a matter of course, be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, there can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be said to be a part of the official duties required to be performed by him. Whether the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner/A4 would come within the purview of performing his official duty or misuse of power, can only be determined during the course of trial by giving an opportunity to the defence to establish it.

If the case, as put forth by the prosecution, fails or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in discharge of duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped. Thus, the question of sanction is left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial. In view of the above, non-obtaining of a sanction order under Section 197 Cr.P.C. will not serve as a ground to quash the complaint.

7.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to prove all his defence before the trial Court in the manner known to law. The petitioner is granted further liberty to approach the trial Court for dispensing with his personal appearance, by filing an affidavit to the effect that he will co-operate for completion of the trial. On such an affidavit being filed by the petitioner, the Trial Court is directed to pass appropriate orders dispensing with his appearance, except the date on which his presence is required. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.

+1 cc to MR.Veera Associates, ADVOCATE, SR NO:79907 +1 cc to MR.Ajmal Associates, ADVOCATE, SR NO:79921 gcg sva/mr/21.02.2017/3p/4c Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1818 of 2011 07.12.2016