Madras High Court
Prabhu vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 18 September, 2024
Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024
&
Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMALKUMAR
CRL.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024
&
Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024
1. Prabhu
2. Rajesh
3. Mohan
4. Janani
5. Vijayarangam ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. State represented by Inspector of Police,
Veppankuppam Police Station,
Vellore.
(Cr.No. 296/2022)
2. Kumar ..Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition to call for the proceedings of the FIR
in Crime No. 296 of 2022 dated 30.11.2022 on the file of the 1st respondent
and quash the same.
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024
&
Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024
For Petitioner :: Ms. R. Prem Rajakumari
For Respondents :: Mr.S. Udayakumar,
Govt.Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 296 of 2022 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) & 326 IPC have filed this quash petition.
2. The gist of the case against the petitioners is that on 30.11.2022, at about 9.30a.m, the de facto complainant Kumar, S/o. Parthasarathy, 14th Ward Councillor, who is the owner of JCB, had sent his JCB to load manure. Near Ongapaadi Pillaiyar Temple, one of the residents, by name, Ragini, had dumped pile of river sand in front of her house for some construction activity and the driver of the JCB had parked his vehicle near that place. After parking the vehicle, he was enquiring the de facto complainant’s brother as to from where the manure had to be loaded. At that time, the 1st petitioner, Prabhu, who had prior political enmity with the de facto complainant, had taken photographs of the JCB parked near the pile 2\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024 & Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024 of river sand to project as if the de facto complainant was using the JCB to illegally excavate and transport river sand. When the de facto complainant questioned the same, Prabhu, after informing his brother Dharani @ Loganathan, used abusive words and took a wooden log and beat the de facto complainant on his left side back and face. Janani/4th petitioner herein used abusive words and Vijayarangam, father of Prabhu/5th petitioner herein had taken a stick from nearby place and had beaten the de facto complainant/Kumar. The other accused, namely, Rajesh and Mohan threatened the de facto complainant showing sticks. Thereafter, the de facto complainant had been taken to Adukkamparai Government Hospital, Vellore and he had taken treatment as an in-patient and lodged the complaint.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the de facto complainant, being a Ward Councillor, is using his political and muscle power in illegal mining of river sand, which was questioned by Prabhu, the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner had lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant as early as on 27.12.2021 to the District Collector 3\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024 & Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024 alleging that the de facto complainant was engaged in illegal sand mining operations utilising a JCB and a tractor, neither of which has proper insurance or permit for such purposes. The 1st petitioner had in fact made complaints to various authorities including the Chief Minister’s cell. In response to the complaint sent by the 1st petitioner to Chief Minster’s Cell, by reply dated 29.03.2022, the Executive Engineer, Melpalaru Delta Division had informed the 1st petitioner that steps have been taken to ensure that illegal mining and smuggling of river sand is prevented and team consisting of police personnel, revenue authorities and other officials concerned are vigilant and taking all possible steps to curtail theft of river sand. According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant had lodged a false complaint. Further, in this case, the 5 th petitioner, namely, Vijayarangam, is a disabled person and his four fingers had been amputated as early as on 20.01.1983. The medical certificate in this regard has been produced. This being so, the entire family of the 1st petitioner and his students have been falsely implicated in this case. The respondent Police have not conducted proper investigation and not considered Prabhu being 4\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024 & Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024 assaulted, the accident register issued by Government Hospital, Anaicut. The investigation is biased to save and support the Councillor and to further act as a deterrent for others, to raise their voice against the Councillor on illegal mining of river sand, the above case has been foisted. Learned counsel further submitted that the 1st petitioner was assaulted and a case in crime No. 18/2023 was registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC against the de facto complainant Kumar, Nilakandan, Parthiban and Ajithkumar. The case came to be registered only after sustained fight and taking of all possible legal steps. In fact, the 1st petitioner was assaulted and the respondent Police assigned CSR No. 702 of 2022. Thereafter, Crime No. 18 of 2023 registered. Hence, it is in the nature of case and counter and both the cases to be investigated and concluded following the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in T. Balaji V. State (Crl.O.P. Nos. 4587 of 2024 etc batch, judgment dated 08.08.2024) and Police Standing Order 566.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the 5\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024 & Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024 case in Crime No.18 of 2023 has been registered at the instance of the 1 st petitioner Prabhu. In that case, the accused are Kumar, S/o. Parthasarathy, the de facto complainant herein, Nilakandan, Parthiban and Ajithkumar. This occurrence in Crime No. 18 of 2023 had taken place on 30.11.2022 at 9 a.m. near Ongapadi Pillayar Temple. The scene of occurrence in respect of both crime numbers is one and the same. The occurrence of Crime No. 18 of 2023 took place at 9a.m. and in respect of Crime No. 296 of 2022, the occurrence had taken place at 9.30a.m. He submitted that as regards Crime No. 18 of 2023, the case closed as ‘mistake of fact’ in RCS 19 of 2023 dated 06.04.2023, but no RCS notice served to the parties concerned. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would also submit that charge sheet kept ready in respect of Crime No. 296 of 2022 in which there is no reference to Crime No. 18 of 2023. He fairly submitted that both the cases ought to have been investigated together and thereafter, following the Full Bench judgment of this Court stated supra, further course of action to be taken.
5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on 6\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024 & Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024 record.
6. In the light of the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that no RCS notice served on the parties concerned in respect of Crime No.18 of 2023 and both the complaints in Crime No.18 of 2023 and 296/2022 are in the nature of case and counter, this Court sets aside the RCS notice issued in 19 of 2023 pertaining to Crime No. 18 of 2023. The Investigating Officer is directed to conduct investigation in both Crime Nos. 296 of 2022 and 18 of 2023 following the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this Court and Police Standing Order 566.
7. With the above direction, the criminal original petition stands disposed of. Consequently, criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.09.2024 nv M. NIRMALKUMAR,J.
7\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024 & Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024 nv To
1. The Inspector of Police, Veppankuppam Police Station, Vellore.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High court Madras.
Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024
& Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024 18.09.2024 8\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis