Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2816 (MAD)

V. Sivagnanam v. State of Tamil Nadu

2016-08-10

P.N.PRAKASH

body2016
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 conduct impartial and independent investigation, on petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2016, prosecute the respondents 7 to 11 criminally, respondents 5 and 6 departmentally, consequently directing the 1st respondent to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner for the atrocities committed by its employees against the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 3. On 26.07.2016, this Court passed the detailed order, which is as follows; " Registry is directed to issue communication to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal, to send the certified photocopies of the bail application in CMP.No.6799 of 2015 in Sendamangalam P.S. Crime No.238 of 2015; the bail order; the sureties' affidavits; and the bail bond executed by the accused and the two sureties for the release of the accused. 2. The learned Magistrate is also directed to obtain from the jail authorities, the photocopy of the page showing the entry and release of the accused in Sendamangalam P.S. Crime No.238 of 2015. 3. All these documents shall be sent in a sealed cover to this Court. 4. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Police, after coming to know that the person arrested in Crime No.238 of 2015 was actually Chandrasekar and not Sivagnanam, they have filed an alteration report in Crime No.238 of 2015 for altering the offence. Thereafter, the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed in C.C.No.13 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal against one Sivagnanam, Ganapathy and Chandrasekar for offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 r/w 7(3) of the TLR Act, 120(b), 465, 468, 419, 205 IPC. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, this final report is not maintainable in law. There are two distinct offences alleged against Chandrasekar, one is that he was selling lottery ticket in violation of TLR Act and the second is for projecting himself as Sivagnanam, when he was arrested, remanded and released on bail. Extraordinary cases require extraordinary remedies, therefore, the final report in C.C.No.13 of 2016 is hereby quashed. 6. There are two distinct offences alleged against Chandrasekar, one is that he was selling lottery ticket in violation of TLR Act and the second is for projecting himself as Sivagnanam, when he was arrested, remanded and released on bail. Extraordinary cases require extraordinary remedies, therefore, the final report in C.C.No.13 of 2016 is hereby quashed. 6. These two are two different and distinct transactions and they cannot be tried under Section 220, 222 and 223 Cr.P.C., In other words, Chandrasekar is liable to be prosecuted for selling lotteries, which is a distinct offence under violation of TLR Act, and when Chandrasekar was caught, that offence ended. Thereafter, Chandrasekar projecting himself as Sivagnanam, a fresh offence arises, for which, a second FIR has to be registered. In a single trial, these two distinct and different transactions cannot be joined. Hence, the final report in C.C.No.13 of 2016 is hereby quashed. 7. As regards Crime No.238 of 2015, for the offence under Section TLR Act, the Police should file an alteration report to alter the name of the accused from Sivagnanam to Chandrasekar and thereafter proceed to file a final report as against him for that offence. 8. As regards the impersonation, a fresh suo moto FIR has to be registered against Chandrasekar for projecting himself as Sivagnanam and investigation should be conducted against Chandrasekar, Ganapathy, Ramajayam and Govindan (sureties) for conspiring to impersonate Sivagnanam. 9. The police is directed to file a counter affidavit explaining the entire circumstances. Post on 09.08.2015 finally." 4. Today, when the matter is called, Ms. T.S.Latha, Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Senthamangalam Police Station, Namakkal District, is present. 5. To recapitulate, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.238 of 2015 on 04.12.2015 under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 r/w 7(3) T.L.R.Act against one Sivagnanam and arrested the said Sivagnanam on the same day. 6. It appears that the respondent police arrested one Chandrasekaran, who gave his name as Sivagnanam. On arrest, the police served on him the arrest intimation in the presence of next friend, by name Ganapathi, who identified the arrestee as Sivagnanam. The police produced Chandrasekaran as Sivagnanam before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal, who remanded him to judicial custody. 7. 6. It appears that the respondent police arrested one Chandrasekaran, who gave his name as Sivagnanam. On arrest, the police served on him the arrest intimation in the presence of next friend, by name Ganapathi, who identified the arrestee as Sivagnanam. The police produced Chandrasekaran as Sivagnanam before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal, who remanded him to judicial custody. 7. Chandrasekaran filed a bail petition in the name of Sivagnanam before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal and he was released on bail on 17.12.2015 on his furnishing a bond with two sureties, who also identified him as Sivagnanam. It was flashed in the Television that the Sivagnanam has been arrested by the police, which made the original Sivaganam to surface and show that as he was not the person, who was arrested. Realising this, the police registered a second case in Crime No.250 of 2015 under Section 392 IPC r/w 379 IPC on the complaint given by one Selvaraj against Sivagnanam (original), Chandrasekaran (original) and Ganapathi (original), pursuant to which, Sivaganam (original) Chandrasekaran (original) and Ganapathi (original) were arrested on 19.12.2015 and remanded to Judicial Custody. 8. Sivagnanam (original) filed a bail petition and he was released on bail on 12.01.2016, in C.M.P.No.16 of 2016 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. Under such circumstances, Sivagnanam (original) is before this Court, challenging the proceedings against him. In the considered opinion of this Court, the FIR No.250 of 2015 is clearly an abuse of Process of law. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation in Crime No.250 of 2015 has been completed and final report has been filed in PRC No.10 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal on 21.07.2016. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the entire FIR in Crime No. 250 of 2015 and consequently, the final report in PRC No.10 of 2016 are abuse of process of law and accordingly, the prosecution in PRC No.10 of 2016 in Crime No.250 of 2015 is quashed against all the accused. 11. This, however, shall not mean that the action against Chandrasekaran (original) can be dropped. 11. This, however, shall not mean that the action against Chandrasekaran (original) can be dropped. As directed by this Court in the order dated 26.07.2016, the respondent police shall register a suo motu FIR against Chandrasekaran (Original), Ganapathi and the two persons, who stood as sureties for Chandrasekaran (original) in Crime No.238 of 2015 for the offence of impersonation as Sivagnanam, obtaining bail by cheating the Court and action be taken in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is closed. No costs.