Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2729 (MAD)

P. Murugaiyan v. R. Kasi

2009-07-28

C.S.KARNAN

body2009
Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5206 of 2005 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The respondents/complainants case is that he has filed the private complaint against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 500 of IPC before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The complainant has contended that he is working in the General Cariappa Higher Secondary School, Saligramam as Junior Assistant, for the past 33 years. The complainant, on various dates, has reported to the school committee and the Department of School Education, about the wrongs committed by the accused/ petitioner, as Head Master. Hence, the accused/petitioner started to behave strangely with the complainant and has started to use filthy language against him in front of the students and teachers and has defamed the complainant. 3. Further, the complainant has stated that the petitioner/ accused used to address him by his caste name in a derogatory manner. Further, the complainant had also submitted a written letter to the Management against the petitioner/accused on 18.02.2005. On 22.02.2005, the Chief Education Officer called the petitioner for enquiry. The complainant had also appeared before him. After the enquiry, again, similar quarrels happened between the petitioner and complainant in front of the students and teachers. Again on 07.03.2005, similar incidents took place between them. On 11.03.2005, at about 3.00 p.m, in front of other non-teaching members, similar derogatory language was used by the petitioner herein against the complainant. On 12.03.2005, again the petitioner used filthy language and insulted the complainant in front of the teachers and others. On all the above occasions, the petitioner used disrespective and derogatory language while addressing him. The above allegations have been alleged by the complainant in his complaint. Finally, the complainant issued legal notice on 14.03.2005. In the said notice, he had asked for an apology and compensation from the petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant had approached the learned Magistrate by way of a private complaint in C.C.No.5206 of 2005. Supporting his complaint, he has mentioned four witnesses and filed three documents. 4. The learned Magistrate, applied his mind and has taken the case on his file as C.C.No.5206 of 2005 and issued summons. 5. Challenging this complaint, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to quash the same. Supporting his complaint, he has mentioned four witnesses and filed three documents. 4. The learned Magistrate, applied his mind and has taken the case on his file as C.C.No.5206 of 2005 and issued summons. 5. Challenging this complaint, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to quash the same. Supporting his petition, the petitioner has filed an affidavit in his name and filed three documents. The petitioner has stated that he was awarded a Good Teacher award and also has been given National Award by the Government of India. The said school is an aided school administered by the Tamil Nadu Government. The petitioner contends that if any irregularities is committed by a teacher or nonteaching member, Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act will come into play, no Court can take cognizance of such acts. Further, the petitioner contends that as per Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973, the complainants case is not maintainable. Further, the petitioner has contended that all the alleged allegations of the complainant had happened during school hours and as such the complainant cannot approach the Court for seeking remedy under Section 500 of IPC. Further, the petitioner has contended that the complainant is subordinate to the petitioner and as such he cannot invoke Section 500 of IPC. 6. The petitioner has further contended that being a Headmaster, he has to discharge his official duties and that if has committed any harm, it is not an act punishable under Section 500 of IPC, but the action against the petitioner should be taken only by the school authorities as per Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act. 7. Further, the petitioner contended that the complainant belongs to a Backward Community and he had fraudulently got community certificate for his son as SC/ST. Subsequently, the community certificate was cancelled by the District Collector. The petitioner further contended that the complainant has alleged that all utterances were made during school hours and therefore the respondent/complainant cannot make a complaint in the Criminal Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the complainant narrated in his complaint that on a few occasions, derogatory language was used by the petitioner in school premises in front of teaching staff, students and others. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the complainant narrated in his complaint that on a few occasions, derogatory language was used by the petitioner in school premises in front of teaching staff, students and others. Further, supporting his case, the same school employees have been mentioned as witnesses. Further, regarding the alleged occurrence, the complainant is not barred to approach the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court is the competent authority to try the instant case. Further, Section 500 of IPC, whether applicable or not in the instant case, has to be decided on the basis of evidence. Hence, the case has got to be tried. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No.27037 of 2005 is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.