CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 29.08.2022
Date of Verdict : 14.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 and
Crl.MP.No.9245 of 2021
Ramanathan (A) Thoopakki Ramanathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State, Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
M4, Sengundram Police Station,
Chennai 600 052
2.Vetrivel ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records relating to PRC.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.P.Krishnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 12
CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021
ORDER
This criminal original petition was filed praying to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-
II, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294B & 307 of IPC and Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 in crime No.592 of 2019 , as against the petitioner.
2. While pending the quash petition, the petitioner and the second respondent amicably settled their issues by the joint compromise memo dated 29.04.2022.
3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered FIR in crime No.592 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 294(b) & 307 of IPC (2 counts) and Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959.
After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same is pending for committal in PRC.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, Thiruvallur. While pending for committal, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.7 of 2021. While pending this quash petition, both the petitioner and the second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 respondent entered into compromise and filed joint compromise memo dated 29.04.2022 and the second respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings.
4. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issues between them have been now settled amicably and the quarrel between them is purely private in nature and have no impact on the society. Further, the possibility of conviction is remote and no useful purpose will be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending.
5. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent / police filed counter and vehemently opposed to quash the proceedings on compromise. The petitioner is a habitual offender and history sheeter. In fact, he was let out on bail on default ground as contemplated under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. due to non filing of final report within the stipulated time. Therefore, the second respondent completed investigation and filed final report and the same is pending for committal in PRC.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, Thiruvallur. He is a history sheeter rowdy in HS.No.14 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, M4, Redhills Police Station, So far, he involved in the following previous cases: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 S Police Station, Crime Number Section No 1 M4 Redhills P.S., U/s 341, 353, 506(ii) IPC & Arms Act & Cr.No.96 of 2007 35 & 35(b) of TN Forest act r/w Rule 9 of TN Timber Transit Act 2 M4 Redhills P.S., 307 IPC 25(i) (B) of Arms Act Cr.No.272 of 2007 3 Ponneri P.S., U/s.among forest act & (ii) Timber Transit Cr.No.371/2011 Rules 35 & 36, 44(b), Section 21(i) & TN Forest Act 1968, Section 3, 1. Sec 55, 56 4 YSR Kadappa Dist. U/s 147, 148, 379, 353, 332, 307 r/w 149 Kodur PS IPC, 20(i)c ii, iii, iv, vi, x APF 20 APFA, 3 Cr.No.104 of 2016 PDPPA 5 Chittur Dist. Vayalpad Ps U/s 147, 148, 353, 307, 109 r/w 149 IPC Cr.No.76/2014 & 379 IPC Sec.20(1)(c )(iii)(iv) and (x) of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 sec.3 of Red Sanders wood and Red Sanders Transists Rule – 1989 6 Chittur Dist 1) 29,32 AP Forest Act Rompicherla Ps Cr.No. 2)Rule 3 AP Sandal wood & Red Sandars 63/2014 Transit Rules 1969
3) 29 Wild life (Protection) Act 1972
4) 353, 307, 379, 109 IPC r/w 55(2) Biological Diversity Act 2002 & 30 of Arms Act 7 Chittur Dist. 1) 29,32 AP Forest Act Rompicherla Ps Cr.No. 2) Rule 3 AP Sandal wood & Red 65/2014 Sandars Transit Rules 1969
3) 29 Wife life (Protection) Act 1972
4) 353, 307, 379, 109 IPC r/w 55(2) Biological Diversity Act 2002 & 30 of Arms Act 8 Chitthoor District 20 APFA, 30 Arms Act, 307, 353, 341 Barkarpet P.S., 148, 147, 149 IPC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 S Police Station, Crime Number Section No Cr.No.64 of 2014 9 Chitthoor District 307, 353, 379 IPC, 20 APFA, 30 Arms Barkarpet P.S., Act, 341, 148, 147, 109, 149 IPC Cr.No.73/2014 10 Chitthoor District 54/2017 U/s 379, 120b r/w 34 IPC, 20(1) Barkarpet P.S., Cr.No. (d)(i)(a)(b) 54/2017 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x), 36 r/w 32 APFA, 3APPSA 11 Chitthoor District U/s 379 IPC & Sec 29, 22 of AP Forest Pakal P.S., Act 1967 r/w rule 3 of AP Sandal Wood Cr.No.86/2014 and Red Sander wood Transist Rules sec 29 of Wild life Act 1972 and 55(ii) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002 12 Chitthoor District G.D U/s 379 r/w 136 IPC Nellore P.S., Cr.No.121/2014 13 Chitthoor District 353,411 IPC, 32,29 APFA,34 IPC, 29 Panjani P.S., WLPA, 307, 379 IPC Cr.No.93/2014 14 Chitthoor District 25(1)(A), 24-B, 24-A Arms Act, 29 S.R.Puram P.S., WLPA, 29, 32 APFA, 34, 109, 353, 379 Cr.No.78/2014 IPC 15 Chitthoor District Nagari P.S., 32 APFA, 34 IPC, 27 Arms Act, 29 Cr.No.170/2014 WLPA, 29 APFA, 411, 379, 353, 307 IPC 16 Chitthoor District 109, 34,353,307,379 IPC Sathivedu P.S., Cr.No.113/2014 17 Kadappa District 147,148,379,307,353,120b,109,149 IPC, Chapadu P.S., 20 APFA, 3 Red Sandal, 3 PDPPA, 0 Cr.No.67/2016 WLPA 18 Kadappa District 307,379,147,148,353,120b,109r/w149 Duvvur P.S. IPC, 3 PDPPA, 20(1)(c) ii,iii,iv,vi,x,29-a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 S Police Station, Crime Number Section No Cr.No.70/2016 APF 19 Kadappa District Khajipet 147,148,353,120(B),379,r/w149 IPC & P.S., Cr.No.105/2016 Sec 20(i), (C) (ii)(iii)(iv),(vi) AP Forest Amendment Act 2016 20 Kadappa District 147,148,307,353,379,120b,109 r/w 149 Khajipet P.S., IPC, 20,1 APFA,3,4 PDPPA Cr.No.106/2016 21 Kadappa District Kodur 147,148,353,307,120b,379 r/w 149 IPC, P.S., Cr.No.105/2016 20(1)(c) ii,iii,iv,vi,x APF, 20 APFA, 3 Red Sandal, 3 PDPPA 22 Kadappa District 147,148,379,307,353,120b,109 r/w 149 Mannur P.S., IPC, 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x) APFA, 3 Cr.No.113/2016 PDPPA 23 Kadappa District 379,353,307,120b,109 r/w 34 IPC, Mydukur U/G P.S., 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x), 20(1)(d)(i) Cr.No.302/2017 (a)(b), 29(1)(4)(a) i (a)(b) APFA, 3 Red Sandal, 3 PDPPA, 51 WLPA 24 Kadappa District 379,307,147,148,353,332,120b,109,149 Mydukur U/G P.S., IPC, 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)(x), 20(1)(d) Cr.No.452/2017 APF, 3 Red Sandal, 29-i(a)(b) APFA, 3PDPPA, 417, 468, 471 IPC 25 Kadappa District 147, 148, 379, 307, 353, 120b, 109 r/w T.Sundupalli P.S., 34 IPC, 20,29 APFA, 3 Red Sandal, 3 Cr.No.107/20116 PDPPA, 0
6. Heard, Mr.V.Elangovan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent / police, and Mr.P.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 respondent.
7. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.Apl.No.349 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019 in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others with regard to quashing the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC on compromise, wherein after elaborately discussing the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Shiji @ Pappu & others Vs. Radhika and another (2011) 10 SCC 705, State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi (2014) 15 SCC 29 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014)6SCC 466, it is held as follows:
“13.Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:
i)that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 dispute amongst themselves;
ii)such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;i
ii)similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code,on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra)should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein above;
v)while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused;the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 Therefore, section 307 of IPC and the Arms Act would fall in the category of heinous and serious offence and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against individual alone. Hence, criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and/or Arms Act, etc which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. Further, while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society on the ground that there is a settlement / compromise between the victim and the offender, the court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused, the conduct of the accused i.e. whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding and how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.
8. In the case on hand, as stated supra, so far the petitioner has involved in 25 previous cases and he had very bad antecedents. All the offences are very serious in nature. He is also a history sheeter in HS.No.14 of 2020 on the file of M4, Redhills Police Station. Considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner and also the conduct of the accused, this Court is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 not inclined to quash the proceedings under compromise.
9. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.09.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order lok To
1.The learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District
2.The Inspector of Police, M4, Sengundram Police Station, Chennai 600 052
3. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 12 CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 14.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 12