Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2665 (MAD)

Karthikeyan v. G. Thangapandian

2024-11-25

N.ANAND VENKATESH

body2024
ORDER : N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. Crl.O.P. (MD) No.12975 of 2018 has been filed by the police officials to quash the proceedings pending in P.R.C.No.18 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magisterial No.1, Sivagangai. The complainant in this case is a practising Advocate. 2. Crl.O.P. (MD) No.12976 of 2018 has been filed by a police official to quash the proceedings pending in P.R.C.No.19 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magisterial No.1, Sivagangai, based on the complaint given by the respondent, who is an Advocate. 3. Both the above cases arises out of similar incident that took place in the year 2018. 4. The sum and substance of the dispute is that the Advocates belonging to the Sivagangai Bar Association staged a road roko on 22.02.2018 questioning one of the decisions that was taken by the Government. The police officials came to the spot and the authorities spoke with the members of the Bar and thereafter the Advocates dispersed from the place. On 23.02.2018 early in the morning, the police officials (A1 to A4) are said to have barged into the house of the respondent and they picked up quarrel with the wife of the respondent in the guise of searching for the respondent. It is alleged that they indulged in pushing down the family members of the respondent and forcibly took the respondent into custody and he was taken to the Sivagangai Town Police Station. 5. Even in the case in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12976 of 2018, a similar incident took place on 23.02.2018 when the police entered into the house and assaulted the respondent and took him forcibly to the police station. Ultimately, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.105 of 2018 and apart from the respondents, some more Advocates were also arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate and they were enlarged on bail. 6. The above incident has given rise to the private complaints filed by the respective respondent as against the police officials who were involved in the incident. The complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai and it was pending in P.R.C.No.18 of 2018 and P.R.C.No.19 of 2018. 7. When the matter came up for hearing on 05.11.2024, this Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. The complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai and it was pending in P.R.C.No.18 of 2018 and P.R.C.No.19 of 2018. 7. When the matter came up for hearing on 05.11.2024, this Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. Considering the nature of dispute and the parties involved, this Court strongly felt that the matter can be amicably settled and accordingly, the following order was passed on 05.11.2024: “Heard Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.J.Jeyakumaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in all these cases. 2.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the entire incident had taken place in these cases and also considering the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2018 and some of the police officers have already retired from service, this Court suggested to the counsel appearing on either side to amicably resolve the dispute. This Court also suggested that all the parties concerned can appear before the Court and that the Court will take efforts to resolve the dispute amicably. 3.The learned counsel appearing on either side seek for sometime to take instructions in this regard. 4.Post these petitions on 15.11.2024 at 2.15 p.m.” 8. The matter was again posted for hearing on 15.11.2024. On that day, Mr.G.Thangapandian and Mr.S.Valameeganathan, Advocates, who are the respondents in these petitions were present before the Court. After hearing them, this Court passed the following order: "Pursuant to the earlier order passed on 05.11.2024, Mr.G.Thangapandian and Mr.S.Valameeganathan, Advocates practicing in Sivagangai District Court were present before this Court. Even after some persuasion, both the Advocates felt that there was clear high-handedness on the part of the police and the incident had happened in the presence of the family members and therefore, the family members were affected due to that incident. However, they ultimately stated that the police officers concerned can also be directed to be present before the Court and some settlement can be arrived at in this case. 2. This Court records its appreciation to Mr.G.Thangapandian and Mr.S.Valameeganathan for having considered the request made by this Court. This Court explained them the other consequences that may arise, if the case is continued. 3. Post this case on 25.11.2024 at 02.15 p.m. On that day, the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD).No.12975 of 2018 shall be present before this Court. 2. This Court records its appreciation to Mr.G.Thangapandian and Mr.S.Valameeganathan for having considered the request made by this Court. This Court explained them the other consequences that may arise, if the case is continued. 3. Post this case on 25.11.2024 at 02.15 p.m. On that day, the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD).No.12975 of 2018 shall be present before this Court. Mr.G.Thangapandian and Mr.S.Valameeganathan shall also be present on that day." 9. The matter was directed to be listed today and this Court directed all the petitioners and also the respondents to be present at the time of hearing. Accordingly, the petitioners were present before this Court. The respondents were also present. The office bearers of the Sivagangai Bar Association were also present before this Court. 10. There are totally seven police officials who are involved in these two cases. Out of the same, three of them have already retired from service. 11. The President, Secretary and Joint Secretary of Sivagangai Bar Association represented that an unfortunate incident had taken place wherein the Advocates were targeted and the entire incident happened in the presence of the family members of the Advocates. It was submitted that the police need not have adopted such strong measures and if the Advocates had been called for enquiry, they by themselves would have gone to the police station to attend the enquiry and it was not necessary to exert force on the Advocates to attend enquiry in the police station. Therefore their grievance is that the Advocates were put to shame in the presence of their family members. 12. I persuaded the Bar members as well as the respondents who were present before this Court that sometimes it will be better to bury the hatchet in a case of this nature and by continuing to prosecute the case, it will only cause more heartburns. Apart from that, since it involves the Advocates and Police, conducting the case before the Court will also create a tense atmosphere in the Court. This will unnecessarily hamper the Court proceedings and pave way for further confrontation. 13. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Mr.S.Valameeganathan, who is one of the respondents is also an office bearer presently and he is holding the post of Treasurer of the Sivagangai Bar Association. 14. This will unnecessarily hamper the Court proceedings and pave way for further confrontation. 13. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Mr.S.Valameeganathan, who is one of the respondents is also an office bearer presently and he is holding the post of Treasurer of the Sivagangai Bar Association. 14. The Bar members on persuasion of the Court left it to the Court to pass any orders and to ensure that such incident does not happen in future. 15. The police officials, who were present before this Court, also expressed their regret and considering the fact that three of the police officials have already retired and the others are in service in different places, this Court advised them not to resort to such harsh measures and if at all any enquiry has to be conducted, summons can be issued to the Advocates and they will always be present before the police station to attend the enquiry. This Court also expressed its dissatisfaction in the manner in which the incident had taken place in the presence of the family members of the Advocates. 16. This Court also carefully heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 17. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that this incident had taken place in the year 2018 and to ensure that this case does not pave way for any future dispute and considering the fact that the parties have mentally resolved to bury the hatchet and the Bar members of Sivagangai Bar Association along with the respondents also left it to this Court to take a final decision, this Court is inclined to close both the cases. Before parting, it must be made clear that the police and the Advocates need not consider one another as enemies and both of them are functioning in their own field of activity and both are bound by the rule of law. Therefore such harsh measures, which is not warranted in a given situation, need not be taken and the enquiry can always be conducted by issuing summons for appearance and by recording the statements of the concerned persons. If such a method had been resorted, there was no occasion for initiating criminal proceedings which was hanging over the head of the petitioners from the year 2018 onwards. 18. If such a method had been resorted, there was no occasion for initiating criminal proceedings which was hanging over the head of the petitioners from the year 2018 onwards. 18. This Court appreciates the gesture shown by the respondents and also the members of the Sivagangai Bar Association, who ably supported the respondents and were present before the Court at the time of hearing. 19. In the result, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.18 of 2018 and P.R.C.No.19 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai, are hereby quashed and both these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.