Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4427 (MAD)

Thangamani & Others v. Dhanalakshmi

2010-10-02

C.T.SELVAM

body2010
Judgment :- This petition seeks to quash proceedings pending in C.C.No.718 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore. The petitioners herein are accused 1 to 4 in such case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners 1 and 2 herein came to their house in a jeep at about 9.45 p.m. on 16.12.2004 and when they arrived there, one Senthilkumaran, son of the complainant in C.C.No.718 of 2005 quarreled with them and they were attacked by the said Senthilkumaran as also the complainant and her husband. The neighbours intervened and the petitioners 1 and 2 were taken to C.M.C hospital, Coimbatore. A complaint was preferred by the 1st petitioner before the B-4, Race Course Police which was registered as Crime No.2168 of 2004 on 17.12.2004 at about 1.30 hours for offence under Sections 294 (b) and 324 IPC . 3. A counter case has been registered by the same police in Crime No.2169 of 2004 for offence under Sections 75(1) of City Police Act and 323 IPC. Such case has been registered on the complaint of the son of the respondent/complainant herein viz., Senthilkumaran and therein it was alleged that the 1st petitioner herein and another were involved in an occurrence wherein when Senthilkumaran was returning home by his motor cycle after having his night meal, his motor cycle was dashed from behind by a jeep and the 1st petitioner herein got down from the vehicle abused the Senthilkumaran and beat him with a stick on the right side of the brow. The person who was with the 1st petitioner pushed him down and kicked him on his stomach. On hearing his cries, the respondent/complainant and her husband came running and sought to prevent the attack on him. The complainants husband was pushed down by the 1st petitioner and the other person and the 1st petitioner beat him. The respondent/complainants husband suffered abrasions and contusion and the neighbours intervened to stop the quarrel. Senthilkumaran and the husband of the complainant were admitted at hospital where the statement of Senthilkumaran was recorded. 4. The complainants husband was pushed down by the 1st petitioner and the other person and the 1st petitioner beat him. The respondent/complainants husband suffered abrasions and contusion and the neighbours intervened to stop the quarrel. Senthilkumaran and the husband of the complainant were admitted at hospital where the statement of Senthilkumaran was recorded. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as against the allegations made in the complaint registered as Crime No.2169 of 2004 by the B-4 Race Course Police, the complaint in C.C.No.718 of 2005 which relates to the very same occurrence informs of other misconduct by the accused including an attack on the complainant whereunder she suffered fracture of the arm and further has implicated the 3rd petitioner who is wife of the 1st petitioner and his neighbour who is the 4th petitioner before this Court. The learned counsel points out that the occurrence took place at 22.20 hours on 16.12.2004 and crime No.2169 of 2004 had been registered by B-4 Race Course Police at 15 hours on 17.12.2004 i.e., 17 hours after the complaint of the petitioner and in such complaint nothing has been informed of any further occurrence or the involvement of persons other than the 1st petitioner and another. The complaint in C.C.No.718 of 2005 stems sheerly from malafide. 5. The learned counsel informs that the police on investigation have filed a charge sheet in Crime No.2168 of 2004 for offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 324 r/w 109 IPC on the complaint of the 1st petitioner herein and also have filed a charge sheet in respect of the other crime No.2169 of 2004 i.e., the complaint preferred by Senthilkumaran for offence under Sections 75(1)(c) of City Police Act and 323 (2 counts) and 325 IPC against the petitioners 1 and 2. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when in respect of the same occurrence, an earlier complaint has been duly investigated upon by the police and, as can now be seen offence under Section 323 (2 counts) and 325 IPC have been alleged by way of charge sheet which is now pending trial in C.C.No.1527 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore and the case against the respondent/complainant, her husband and son Senthilkumaran was pending trial in C.C.No.1504 of 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore, the filing of a complaint in respect of the same occurrence alleging the involvement of the another family member and a neighbour viz., the petitioners 3 and 4 was malafide and was an abuse of process of law. 7. The learned counsel submits that the complaint has been preferred on 18.01.2005 i.e., a month after the occurrence, as an after thought. The learned counsel submits that the complainant has not made any mention of the registration of Crime Nos.2168 and 2169 of 2004, at the instance of the rival parties and thus has misled the lower Court to take cognizance. It is submitted that where due investigation has been conducted in respect of the occurrence, charge sheet stands filed and the trial therein presently is in progress, the continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.718 of 2005 in respect of the very same occurrence and on malicious complaint filed one month after the occurrence without so much as informing in the complaint the fact of registration of two other crime numbers in respect of the same occurrence would be highly improper and an abuse of process. Interests of justice would require that further proceedings in C.C.No.718 of 2005 be quashed. 8. I have heard the learned Amicus Curaie on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. The learned Amicus Curaie submits that in circumstances where, on consideration of the complaint and the statement of witnesses, the lower Court has thought it fit to take cognizance, this Court would not interfere. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 11. As a general rule faced with a case and counter as in the instant case, the police could register both complaints, investigate thereupon, register a case against the aggressors and refer the other complaint. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 11. As a general rule faced with a case and counter as in the instant case, the police could register both complaints, investigate thereupon, register a case against the aggressors and refer the other complaint. However, in the instant case, we find that investigation has led to the filing of charge sheets in both cases. Be that as it may, in the instant case it is apparent that the complaint in C.C.No.718 of 2005 which has been filed one month after the occurrence, informing the participation of the petitioners 3 and 4 herein of which there is not a whisper in the complaint registered as crime No.2169 of 2004 is nothing but malicious and is intended only to rope in two others favourably disposed towards the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners when the complaint in Crime No.2169 of 2004 itself was given to the police only 17 hours after the occurrence, there would be no occasion for failure to spell out the occurrence as it transpired. It is seen that as against the registration of F.I.R for offence under Sections 75(1)(c) of City Police Act and 323 IPC, the investigating agency has on completion of investigation filed a charge sheet for offence under Sections 323 (2 counts) as also 325 IPC against the two persons accused as per the complaint in Crime No.2169 of 2004. The filing of such charge sheet reflects the fairness in the investigation. 12. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.718 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore would be a furtherance of the abuse of process indulged in by the respondent/complainant and would entail undue harassment of the petitioners herein. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.718 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13. This Court places on record the service rendered by Mr.K.Ramesh, Amicus Curaie and directs the State Legal Services Authority to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/-to him towards his fee.