Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4191 (MAD)

Paramasivam v. Muralikrishnan

2016-12-20

P.KALAIYARASAN

body2016
ORDER : This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the private complaint in C.C. No. 51 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai and quash the same. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners are government officials. The petitioners, being Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar of the area, were involved in disilting the public channel and also removing the encroachments. The father of the defacto complainant encroached the public land in S.No.118/1 and prevented the channel water from proper flowing. The officials with the help of police, removed the encroachment made by the petitioners father on 03.10.2009, after complying proper legal requirements. At the time of removal of encroachment, the complaint and his family members threatened the officials and prevented them from removing the encroachments. 3. The complainant gave a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate alleging that on 03.10.2009 at about 7.30 p.m., when he was standing in front of Tahsildar’s office, the petitioners said to have approached him and the first petitioner fisted on his chest and the second petitioner fisted all over the body and shouted against the complaint for preventing them from diverting the channel. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C., in C.C. No. 51 of 2010. The above private complaint was given only to wreck vengeance and to threaten the officials. It is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceeding in C.C.No.51 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai is to be quashed. 4. Despite several opportunities, there was no representation on the side of the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that only to wreck vengeance, the private complaint has been filed by the defacto complainant as against the officials, who have done their official function in removing the encroachment by following due process of law. Even in the complaint, it is stated that there is enmity between the complainant and the petitioners officials with respect to the diversion of the channel. 6. During the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought the notice of this Court, the letter addressed by the Tahsildar to the Collector, wherein, it has been clearly stated that the encroachments made by Chinnammal W/o. Nalluchamy in S.F. No. 118/1 were removed on 03.08.2009. 6. During the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought the notice of this Court, the letter addressed by the Tahsildar to the Collector, wherein, it has been clearly stated that the encroachments made by Chinnammal W/o. Nalluchamy in S.F. No. 118/1 were removed on 03.08.2009. The defacto complainant is the son of Nalluchamy. Therefore, it is clear that encroachment made by the family of the defacto complainant was removed by the petitioners on 03.10.2009. On the same day, the defacto complainant in his statement before the Judicial Magistrate stated that he is M.Sc., L.L.B., graduate and there was an animosity between his family members and the petitioners due to digging of the channel as it affected their land. 7. The allegation in the private complaint is that at about 07.30 p.m., when the complainant was standing in front of the Taluk Office, the petitioners came to him and fisted with hands. He has not stated in the complaint or sworn statement as to what made him to go to the Taluk Office at 07.30 p.m. It is also highly improbable that officers in the Taluk Office came out and fisted the petitioners, when the encroachment itself was removed with the help of the police despite resistance from the side of the defacto complainant and his family members. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the proceedings in C.C.51 of 2010 as against the petitioners have to be quashed as the same was instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the petitioners by citing the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana and others V. Ch.Bajanlal and Others reported in JT 1990 (4) SC 650, wherein, it has been held as follows : “107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. .” 9. Considering the entire facts of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the petitioners and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge. The intention of the defacto complainant is to prevent the public servants from discharging their duties. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai as against the petitioners are liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same are quashed. The criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.