Madras High Court
Rajangam vs The Inspector Of Police on 24 August, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 24.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.548 & 549 of 2021
1.Rajangam
2.Selvam
3.Mathiyalagan
4.Kalaiselvan ... Petitioner/A1 to A4
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Alangudi Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
(Crime No.277 of 2015) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Krishnan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.58 of 2019 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi and quash the same as
arbitrary and illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Balasundharam
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.K.C.Maniyarasu
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.58 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi.
2. The case of the prosecution:-
The defacto complainant is doing Fire Wood Business. Because of
the business, there was a pollution problem in that area. The third petitioner
alleged to have threatened him stating that he has filed a petition before the
authorities about the pollution and demanded Rs.50,000/-. On 09.07.2015,
at about 3.15 p.m, the petitioners alleged to have created problem, in front
of his house and at that time, the first and second petitioners alleged to have
attacked him with wooden sticks and the third petitioner attacked him with
iron rod and the fourth petitioner attacked him with wooden stick. As a
result of which, he sustained injuries and so, he lodged a complaint. Based
upon which, a case in Crime No.277 of 2015 was registered on 10.07.2015,
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC.
Investigation was also undertaken and materials were collected and finally,
final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi,
and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.58 of 2019. Seeking quashment of
the proceedings, this petition is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
3. The main ground that has been alleged by the petitioners is that
because of running Fire Wood Factory, pollution in the atmosphere was
rising. So, a complaint, which was signed by the villagers including the
petitioners, was preferred by the fourth respondent to the authorities for
closing down the Fire Wood Business. So, on the basis of the complaint,
given by the fourth petitioner, on 09.07.2015, the District Environmental
Engineer, Tamilnadu Polution Control Board, has visited the place, and he
found that the business was running without any proper license and so, he
ordered to close down the Fire Wood Factory, on 07.08.2015, through the
proceedings in Ka.No./MaSuSooPo/Tha.Ma.Ka.Va/Pudukai/koNo.1081/
Pugar/2015 and the Fire Wood Factory was also closed. For the purpose of
identifying the place of Fire Wood Factory, the petitioners also
accompanied with the officials. At that time, the defacto complainant along
with the five other persons including his two sons, attacked the petitioners
with aruval, wooden logs etc., As a result of which, they sustained injuries.
So, on the basis of the complaint, given by them, a case in Crime No.276 of
2015 has been registered for lesser offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324
and 506 (ii) IPC against the defacto complainant and five other persons. The
petitioners preferred a petition in Crl.OP(MD)No.14597 of 2015 before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
Court, seeking transfer of investigation and it was disposed of with a
direction to monitor the investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police. Subsequent to that, the offences have been altered into 307 IPC by
the respondent police. Without properly appreciating the facts, investigation
was done and final report has been filed, on the basis of the complaint,
given by the defacto complainant, in this matter. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard both sides.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a case
in counter case. The connected case in S.C.No.83 of 2017 is pending before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, and the petitioners have filed a
petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C, in Crl.MP.No.992 of 2017, seeking
transfer of C.C.No.58 of 2019 to that Court for simultaneous trial and for
send all the documents with regard to the case in Crime No.277 of 2015. So,
a report was called for from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pudukottai, on this aspects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
6. When the matter taken up for clarification on this aspect, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case in C.C.No.
58 of 2019, which is the subject matter, in this petition has been transferred
from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi to the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pudukottai for simultaneous trial along with S.C.No.83 of 2017.
7. So, this Court is of the opinion that since the grievance of the
petitioner is redressed, nothing more survives for further consideration.
8. But, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the matter can be disposed of on merits since he has made out prima
facie case for quashing the final report.
9.It is a case in counter case and the same was also admitted by both
sides.
10. On 09.07.2015, the petitioners alleged to have assaulted the
defacto complainant. As a result of which, he sustained injuries. The second
accused alleged to have assaulted him with wooden sticks. The third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
accused also attacked him with iron rod and the fourth accused attacked him
with wooden log. Witness No.1 is the injured. During the course of 161
Cr.P.C statement, he stated that he was assaulted by the accused and
sustained injuries. For the purpose of showing the nature of injury and the
treatment, the medical officers from Alangudi and the Government Hospital,
Pudukottai have been examined. During the course of investigation, they
have stated that the defacto complainant sustained injuries and it was found
to be simple in nature.
11. It is seen that the defacto complainant sustained injuries. As
mentioned earlier, who are the aggressor can be found out only during the
course of trial proceedings. The argument on the side of the petitioners that
without ascertaining, who are the aggressor, the final report has been filed,
cannot be accepted. It is the settled proposition of law that if the
Investigating Officer, is not in a position to ascertain the real aggressor,
there is no bar for him to file final report in both the cases. When this being
the settled position of law, the contention, on the part of the petitioner that
the course adopted by the Investigating Officer in filing final report in both
the cases, is not sustainable under law, is not at all acceptable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
12. The another contention on the part of the petitioners is that only
the defacto complainant and his men have assaulted them and others when
they have went to the Fire Wood Factory along with the officials also can be
found out only at the time, as mentioned earlier.
13.The learned counsel for the second respondent would rely upon
the number of judgments for the purpose of argument that only
simultaneous trial is permissible. Under such circumstance and the
petitioners cannot be permitted to argue that the case must be quashed. As
mentioned earlier, in a number of judgments, the above said proposition, has
been repeatedly pressed. More particularly, in the case of Sujin Vs. The
Inspector of Police, Kollamcode Police Station, Kollamcode,
Kanyakumari District, in Crl.OP(MD)No.4424 of 2017, after going
through the earlier judgments, as well as the PSO 145 and 588A, came to
the conclusion that a final report in both the case in counter case, can be
filed when the Investigating Officer is not in a position to find out the real
aggressor. Such a course is permissible, as per the judgment reported in
Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttra Pradesh (1990) SCC (Cri) 638. Since it is a
settled proposition of law,we need not extract the observation of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
Supreme Court or other Courts in this judgment. Both the cases, must be
tried simultaneously, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai.
So, quashment, on the facts and circumstance of the case, will not lie and
the petition deserves dismissal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition are closed.
14. This Court directs the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pudukottai to conduct simultaneous trial in C.C.No.58 of 2019 and S.C.No.
83 of 2017 and dispose both the matters as per law within five months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order, since, the crime is of the year 2015.
15. After completion or disposal of the cases, compliance report must
be submitted to the Registry.
24.08.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pudukottai.
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi
Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Alangudi Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1154 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.548 & 549 of 2021
24.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
