Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 326 (MAD)

Savithri Viozat @ Gayathri v. State

2014-02-11

C.T.SELVAM

body2014
Judgment : 1. This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash proceedings in S.C.No.136 of 2011 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. 2. Upon a complaint preferred by the father of this petitioner, a case came to be registered, on 02.02.2008, in Crime No.17 of 2008 on the file of the Aroville Police Station, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427, 379 and 506 (i) IPC. The complaint reads as follows:- “I, undersigned, Andre Viozat, S/o.Etienne VIOZAT aged 65 hereby reporting the grave incident which happened on 28/1/08 at about 11 AM at my residence 'Turiya', Edayanchavady Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, in which my cameras worth about one lakh rupees were stolen, my car was damaged to the extent of Rs.65,000/- and I got hit by a huge group of goondas and manhandled while saving my house from destruction by bulldozer. I have already complained to DIG and SP on 29/1/08 and 30/1/2008. They took my complaint but asked me to file a fresh complaint at Auroville Police Station also. On 28/1/2008, at 9.30 A.M. I had the visit of one CID officer Mr.Shanmugam, who enquired about my property. I took him through my entire estate and appraised him of the attempt by my wife Chandrika, to sell away the lands, and of the Court Injunction in my possession in regards of these lands. After parting with Mr.Shanmugam, while I was leaving my house by car at about 11 am, I found that a JCB Bulldozer Reg. No.PY 01 AE 5274 was positioned in front of my residence and approaching the compound wall made of granite stones about 6 meters high with obvious intention to demolish the wall. I interposed my car between the wall and the bulldozer and moved the car front and back swiftly to keep the bulldozer from reaching the wall as it moved. Suddenly, a crowd of about 150 rowdies led by my wife Chandrika, one Ramkumar also known as Laxminarayanan and one Kannan came towards me and hit my car with their hands and with sticks causing heavy damage to my car. Suddenly, a crowd of about 150 rowdies led by my wife Chandrika, one Ramkumar also known as Laxminarayanan and one Kannan came towards me and hit my car with their hands and with sticks causing heavy damage to my car. I then tried to film the scene with my movie camera from inside the car but Chandrika ordered my camera to be stolen and a goonda with a white shirt (name not known to me but he could be photographed later) succeeded to force open my car by breaking the door and snatch both my cameras (a moving DVD camera Sony worth Rs.45,000/- and a high quality digital still camera make Sony model DJC-F828). The items were passed to another goonda and concealed in the car of Chandrika bearing Reg. No.PY 01 S 1285. The names of the two goondas are not known to me but a photo was taken of them while they wee concealing the stolen goods in the car. About 35 to 50 men were blocking my car by sitting on it, surrounding it and placing palm tree logs under the wheels. Another car of my company which had reached to bring help was immediately thrown in the ditch and my people were prevented to come and help me, threatened at knife point. At this point of time I was hit, tossed away and manhandled by one Mathi who is a henchman of Chandrika and he ordered the goondas to finish me. My car tyres were deflated, and a crowd of goondas were shouting at me to intimidate me so that finally I got overpowered and I could not prevent the bulldozer from taking position to demolish my compound wall. To save my life I had to run away. The bulldozer gave several hits to the wall, which are visible on the photo and a huge crack was made. At this point of time villagers came with their Ex-President, Mr.Elumali. It is only thanks to the courage of the villagers who protected me and also my property by interposing their own bodies between the bulldozer and the wall that my life and my residence could be saved. At this point of time villagers came with their Ex-President, Mr.Elumali. It is only thanks to the courage of the villagers who protected me and also my property by interposing their own bodies between the bulldozer and the wall that my life and my residence could be saved. I told several times to the police personnel present on the scene, that I am in full possession and enjoyment of the place and I also have a court injunction order but they said injunction is for the land but not for the compound wall so the wall can be demolished. On hearing the news two reporters came on the scene but the police chased them away by shouting at them not to take any snap or give any news. Passerby enquired what is going on. They were told by Chandrika that it was only cinema shooting. The police not only refused to help me in my predicament but seemed to actually lead the operation. Instead of discharging their official duties, though in uniform, they seem to be acting in their personal capacity to execute this illegal destruction plan with the help of 150 goondas with the abatement of Chandrika, Ramkumar and Kannan. The news of this scandalous and criminal action reached Villupuram, Chennai and even New Delhi and orders came from the higher-ups. Then only the situation got diffused. I pleaded to the police to at least give back my movie camera which is a necessary tool for my day to day work in my company but I was replied harshly that they did not bother about that. My lawyers had sent a notice on 27/1/08 to all the above mentioned persons to inform them once more that the land in my estate is under a valid Court Injunction, Ramkumar is believed to be the same as Laxinarayanan, a gov't doctor, who is the husband of Revathy who purchased my land illegally in a benami transaction. Kannan is the benamidar and henchmen of Laxminarayanan in purchasing a portion of the land illegally. This deal is in flagrant violation of the Injunction order and their action is clear contempt of court in addition to being a case of illegal benami transaction. Kannan is the benamidar and henchmen of Laxminarayanan in purchasing a portion of the land illegally. This deal is in flagrant violation of the Injunction order and their action is clear contempt of court in addition to being a case of illegal benami transaction. I had published notice in the Newspapers in Tamil and English many times warning the public that this land is under litigation in 27/6/2007 in Dinamalar and Dinakaran, on 03/08/2007 in Dinamalar and Daily Thanthi, Hindu and Indian Express, on 1/9/2007 in Daily Thanthi, Dinamalar and Sunday Express given all details of the Injunction and again on 25/1/08 in Daily Thanthi, Malaimalar and Indian Express. My Lawyers have also informed Chandrika, Laxminarayan and the police of the injunction but they have all committed breach of the Order of the Hon'ble Court of the Principal District Judge at Villupuram and they are all guilty of gross contempt of this Hon'ble Court. The CID Officer Mr.Shanmugam has witnessed the aggression throughout. I demanded that my complaint be duly registered, FIR raised and that severe preventive, punitive and dissuasive action be taken against all the culprits. When I have been living peacefully in this country for the past 36 years, giving my dedicated work to the Society, I now have to live in fear and under the constant apprehension that goondas are going to attack me and raze my residence to the ground and even harm my 250 or so workmen employed in my companies. Hence, I request the police to arrest the culprits for riot, affray, breach of peace, aggression, damage to property, attempt to trespass, theft and attempt to murder.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that originally the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottakuppam Sub-Division, Villupuram District, filed charge sheet informing commission of offences under sections 147, 148, 448, 341, 427, 379 and 506(ii) IPC on 21.02.2008. Thereafter, on a further representation made by the defacto complainant, the Government, in Lr.No.73509/Pol.XI/2008-1, Home, dated 18.08.2008, and in RC No.168863/Crime II (1)/2008 of DGP, Chennai-4, dated 28.08.2008 in RC No.890/23256/2008 of the ADGP, CB CID, Chennai, dated 23.10.2008, directed transfer of investigation to the CB CID, for further investigation which was taken up on 24.11.2008. Thereafter, on a further representation made by the defacto complainant, the Government, in Lr.No.73509/Pol.XI/2008-1, Home, dated 18.08.2008, and in RC No.168863/Crime II (1)/2008 of DGP, Chennai-4, dated 28.08.2008 in RC No.890/23256/2008 of the ADGP, CB CID, Chennai, dated 23.10.2008, directed transfer of investigation to the CB CID, for further investigation which was taken up on 24.11.2008. He further submitted that, pursuant thereto, a charge sheet stands filed, informing commission of offences under Sections 149 read with 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, and 427 and 341 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that neither in the complaint nor in the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements, the petitioner stood implicated. Even the reading of 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses would, at best, only inform the presence of the petitioner at the scene. He further submits that, if indeed the petitioner was involved in any wrong doing, the same would have been spoken to in the very complaint itself. 5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the aforesaid submissions. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that further investigation, in the case, reveals the involvement of this petitioner and as such, she would have to establish her innocence only at the trial. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. This Court finds that while the statements of list witnesses would inform of the presence of the petitioner at the scene, one such statement would go further to inform that she had called for the presence of the offenders over cell phone. While mere presence of the petitioner alone would not point to her culpability, the statement regarding her having called for the offenders over cell phone is not supported by any material such as call records. There is some force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that, if indeed, the petitioner had partaken in the occurrence, the de facto complainant would have informed so. The de facto complainant is now no more. His wife/mother of the petitioner and others are facing prosecution for having caused his death. The petitioner is not an accused in such case. Many an offspring is caught in the crossfire between sparring spouses. The de facto complainant is now no more. His wife/mother of the petitioner and others are facing prosecution for having caused his death. The petitioner is not an accused in such case. Many an offspring is caught in the crossfire between sparring spouses. Given the role attributed to the petitioner that there hardly is any possibility of her conviction, that her father, the de facto complainant, has not informed of any wrong doing on her part, that pendency of criminal proceedings against her in the circumstances would have very serious repercussions on her, this considers it appropriate to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.136 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, in so far as this petitioner is concerned and accordingly, the same is quashed. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.