Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State on 9 February, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 09.02.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 05.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8779 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.5951 & 5952 of 2017
1.A.Ramesh
2.Kattayan Kadarkarai
3.Sivanraj
4.S.Muthukumar
5.Sivan Nadar
6.Pathamuthu
7.V.Mariyappan
8.Mariyappan
9.Ramasamy
10.Selvaraj
11.Murugesa Pandian
12.S.Madasamy
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
13.P.Megathuraja
14.M.Paramasivam
15.M.Soundarapandi
16.M.Ravikumar
17.A.Nagarajan
18.Muppidari
19.P.Murugesan
20.S.Rajeshwaran
21.S.Paneerselvam ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 21
Vs.
1.The State,
Rep by Inspector of Police,
Srivilliputhur Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
2.S.Ramar ... Respondents/Complainants
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in pertaiing to Charge Sheet in C.C.No.10 of 2017 on the file
of the learned Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputhur and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Solaisamy
For R1 : Mr.R.Anandharaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.V.Sasikumar
2/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court
No.II, Srivilliputhur.
2.Brief facts of the case:-
The respondent herein, filed a complaint before the first respondent
police, which was registered in Crime No.291 of 2016 under Section 420,
294 (b), 506 (ii) IPC @ 294 (b), 506 (ii) and 109 IPC with the following
allegations;
The defacto complainant is a member in Perumalpatti Nadar
Uravinmurai Sangam, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. During the year
2012 - 2013, the Office Bearers of the Sangam misappropriated a sum of
Rs.8 Lakhs. Without proper vouchers and permission of the Sangam, they
also, created forged documents. Later, during the year 2013 - 2014, one
Vanniyaraj, became the President of the Sangam and he has appointed an
Audit Committee to look into financial affairs. The defacto complainant was
also one of the member in the said Audit Committee. During the audit, they
found out the above said misappropriation and misutilization of the amount.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
3. Based upon the Audit Report, they directed the accused to remit
the amount. But, they refused. Later, during the year 2015 – 2016, another
Office Bearers took over the Sangam and they threatened the defacto
complainant and others and also ex-communicated them. Because of this ex-
communication, they suffered a lot.
4. On 25.04.2016, at about 09.00 p.m, when the defacto complainant
was talking with one Manickam, at that time, the accused Muthukumar and
Muttal Ramasamy along with 19 named persons came there and threatened
him that they will kill him by running a vehicle over him. So, he became
panic. One Manickam intervened and he was also threatened and abused in
filthy language. They also abused the defacto complainant with filthy
language. So, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police.
5. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent police took up the
investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses and after
completing the investigation, they filed a final report, making allegations
against the petitioners for having committed offences punishable under
Sections 294 (b), 506(ii) and 109 of IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
6. To quash the charge sheet, this petition is filed by the petitioners,
mainly on the ground that due to difference of opinion in the Nadar
Uravinmurai, false complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant.
So, none of the allegation mentioned in the charge sheet attract the
ingredients of the offence alleged.
7. Per contra, it is the contention on the part of the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that based upon the complaint given by the second
respondent, during investigation, prima facie materials were collected
against the petitioners and so, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. From the facts narrated above and in the light of the rival
contention, put forth by the parties, it is seen that a dispute arose between
the second respondent as well as the accused regarding the affairs of the
Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam situated at Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar
District, which is also called as Perumal Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam. From
the reading of the complaint, it is seen that financial irregularities were
committed by some of the past Office Bearers and according to the defacto
complainant, he found out misappropriation of amount of the Sangam on
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
auditing. But, counter complaint has also been filed against the defacto
complainant and others by one Muthukumar, who is the fourth petitioner
herein, before the second respondent, which was also registered in Crime
No.541 of 2016 on 12.07.2016 under Section 147, 294 (b), 506 (i) and 420
IPC, wherein, also it has been stated that the financial irregularities were
committed by the second respondent herein and others, who were the Office
Bearers, during the relevant time. When they demanded, payment of that
amount, they were also threatened and abused him with filthy language.
9. It is seen that rival complaints have been registered with regard to
the financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Office
Bearers.
10. Originally, the case was heard and reserved for judgment and it
was again posted for clarification regarding the fact of Crime No.541 of
2016. But, the parties were not in a position to inform the Court about the
result of the investigation in that case. But, what ever it may be, it is seen
that complaint and counter complaint have been registered against each
others.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
11. Reading of the complaint shows that the defacto complainant
wanted the police to take action against these petitioners for cheating as
well as for ex-communicating him. But, after investigation, final report has
been filed by the police by altering the offences to under Sections 294 (b),
506 (ii) and 109 IPC. The allegation of cheating that has been alleged
against the misappropriation of Rs.8 lakhs is not the subject matter of the
final report. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the counter complaint has also
been given, making allegation, against the defacto complainant and others
over that amount. So, offence of cheating is not attracted and so, the
Investigation Officer has not filed final report by making this offence.
12. With regard to 109 IPC, there is no allegation in the First
Information Report that only as per the abetment made by the other accused
persons, the accused namely, Muthukumar and Ramasamy abused him with
filthy language and tried to kill him by running vehicle over him. Moreover,
with regard to the allegation of ex-communication, the defacto complainant
has also filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13498 of 2016 before this
Court, which is still pending and he can work out his remedy, in the writ
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
petition. So, except specific materials against the petitioners namely,
Muthukumar and Ramasamy, no materials is available against the other
petitioners. Moreover, with regard to the ex-communication, the defacto
complainant cannot be proceeded against these petitioners in this case. If at
all, he can work out his remedy as per law, if so advised, that criminal
prosecution will lie for such an allegation.
13. Moreover, with regard to the criminal intimidation said to have
been committed by the petitioners with regard to the misappropriation of the
amount, no specific date, is mentioned by the defacto complainant in the
complaint. A bald allegation is stated to the effect that when the defacto
complainant questioned the petitioners about the misappropriation, they
threatened him that they will kill him. But, this will not amount to criminal
intimidation as defined under Section 503 of IPC since mere verbal
utterance will not attract the offence. So, the petition is partly liable to be
allowed.
14. Insofar as the petitioners 4 & 9 is concerned, this petition stands
dismissed and they are directed to face the trial. Insofar as the petitioners
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
1 to 3, 5 to 8 and 10 to 21 are concerned, this petition stands allowed and
the charge sheet field by the first respondent against them, is quashed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
......03.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
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 Magistrate Court No.II,
Srivilliputhur.
2.The nspector of Police,
Srivilliputhur Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8779 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.5951 & 5952 of 2017
05.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
