Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2518 (MAD)

Mohankumar v. S. Murugesan

2009-07-21

C.S.KARNAN

body2009
Judgment : The petitioner/3rd accused has filed this petition to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.7 of 2006, pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal and quash the proceedings. 2. The respondent/complainant has filed the H.R.O.P.No.4 of 1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem, against three accused, on an alleged offence under Sections 342 and 355 of IPC r/w. 2(d) of Protection of Human Rights Act. Supporting the case, the respondent has filed seven documents. The ingredients of the complaint was that one Mrs.Rashiya Begum, wife of Mohammed Yusuf lodged a complaint at Belukurichi Police Station, stating that on 17.07.1997, the respondent kidnapped one Mrs.Noorjehan, mother of Rashiya Begum. The said complaint was registered on the file of Belukurichi police station in Crime No.176 of 1997 on an alleged offence under Section 363 IPC. 3. Further, the said Rashiya Begums father, Matharshah lodged a complaint with the same police station stating that he was assaulted by the respondent herein and one Thangavelu @ Shakthivel. The said complaint dated 21.07.1997 was registered by the Belukurichi Police Station in Crime No.180 of 1997. On an alleged offence under Sections 341, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC. The respondent resisted the said cases before the concerned Magistrate. 4. The respondent was released on bail and reported before the said police station. Subsequently, the condition was relaxed. After relaxation of bail condition, the petitioner and two others, who are attached to the said police station forcibly detained the respondent herein in the police station on 10.09.1997, 11.09.1997, 12.09.1997, 13.09.1997 and 14.09.1997. Further, the police personnel did not permit the respondent to pass calls of nature and made him naked in the station. Further, it is alleged that the police personnel tampered the registry and rewrote the arrest registry stating that he was arrested on 13.09.1997 instead of 10.09.1997. 5. Regarding this illegal detention, the respondent sent legal notice to the concerned police personnel, and asked them to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as damages and also stated that he would take legal action. Thereafter, the respondent filed the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal. The same was taken by the learned Magistrate on his file as C.C.No. 7 of 2006. 6. Thereafter, the respondent filed the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal. The same was taken by the learned Magistrate on his file as C.C.No. 7 of 2006. 6. The petitioner/accused No.3 has challenged the said proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2006 in the above Criminal Original Petition stating that no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner and no specific role has been attributed against the petitioner. The Inspector of Police of the said station had effected the arrest of the said respondent. Further, no allegation has been made against the petitioner herein and also no criminal liability has been foisted upon him. Further, the complaint preferred by the respondent is barred by limitation, and hit by Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859. It is alleged that the respondent has preferred the complaint on the petitioner and two other police persons only on 20.07.1997. Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act clearly states that any complaint against the police should be given within three months of the occurrence. 7. Further, the petitioner states that the learned Magistrate has taken the case on 18.07.2006. The offence under Section 342 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for one year. The offence under Section 355 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for two years. Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C. clearly provides that no court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year. As such, the complaint is not maintainable and has to be quashed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents counsel argued the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision reported in 2003(8) SCC 559 , (Bharat Damodar Kale and another ..vs.. State of Andhra Pradesh). 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not discuss about Section 2(d) of Protection of Human Rights Act. Further, the citation referred supra is not applicable in this instant case. Further, the learned Magistrate, after applying his judicial mind, has taken the case on file, as C.C.No.7 of 2006. Regarding the limitation, this is not applicable for an alleged offence under Section 2(d) of Protection of Human Rights Act. 10. Hence, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2006, and it cannot be quashed. Further, the learned Magistrate, after applying his judicial mind, has taken the case on file, as C.C.No.7 of 2006. Regarding the limitation, this is not applicable for an alleged offence under Section 2(d) of Protection of Human Rights Act. 10. Hence, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2006, and it cannot be quashed. Accordingly, the above Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.