Madras High Court
Muthiah Posumpon vs State Rep Through The on 27 January, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 27.01.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.8979 & 8980 of 2017
1.Muthiah Posumpon
2.Ramani
3.Azhagarsamy
4.Gnanasekar ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3,4 &7
Vs.
1.State rep through the
Inspector of Police,
C-4, Thilagar Thidal Police Station (L& O)
Madurai City,
Madurai.
Crime No.1240 of 2014 ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.PAndi ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the entire records of the charge sheet laid in C.C.No.306 of 2015 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Madurai and quash the
same as illegal.
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For R1 : Mr.M.Ganesan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Died (Memo filed)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.306 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court
No.II, Madurai.
The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
The petitioners along with some other persons are facing charges
under Section 147, 294 (b), 427 and 506 (ii) of IPC before the Judicial
Magistrate, No.II, Madurai.
2.The defacto complainant in this case, lodged a complaint on
01.10.2014, alleging that during the relevant time, he was working as a
Security in Tamil Sangam, Madurai. On 01.10.2014, at about, 11.00 a.m,
when he was on duty, the named accused persons along with some unknown
10 persons threatened him to open the gate of the Tamil Sangam and
threatened him. The accused namely Ramani, Azhagarsamy, Senthil and
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
Arumugam, instigated the other unknown persons to kill him and also
abused him in filthy language. The accused Gnanasekar by abusing the
defacto complainant pushed him and he sustained simple injury. They also
caused damage to the name board of the Tamil Sangam. The occurrence
took place, at the instigation of Gurusamy, Muthiah and Pasumpon. Seeking
action against those persons, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint,
which was registered in Crime No.1240 of 2014 for the offences under
Sections 147, 294 (b), 427 and 506 (ii) of IPC on 01.10.2014. Based upon
the complaint, the Thilagar Thidal Police-C4, conducted the investigation
and recorded the submission of witnesses and finally, they filed a final
report before the leaned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Madurai, and the
same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.306 of 2015, on 20.10.2015. So,
against that, this quash petition has been filed, on the ground that none of
the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioners are satisfied
and so, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
4.The defacto complainant namely, the second respondent herein is
reported to be dead and no steps were filed.
5.As mentioned earlier, the case of the prosecution is that the
petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 7 before the Trial Court.
In the final report, it has been stated that these petitioners along with other
co-accused committed the offence as set out in the final report. As stated
earlier, the defacto complainant was working as security during the relevant
point of time, in Tamil Sangam, Madurai. So, perusal of records filed along
with this petition shows that some dispute over the Management of the
College namely Senthamil Arts and Oriental College, Madurai arose
between the first accused namely, Gurusamy and one Kumaran Sethupathi,
who is stated to be the president of the Tamil Sangam, Madurai, where the
alleged occurrence took place. During investigation, the Investigation
Officer, recorded the statement of two witnesses, who were eye witnesses
to the occurrence.
6.According to the petitioner, none of the offence alleged against the
petitioners are attracted since no ingredients have been made out. The first
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
offence alleged against the petitioner is that they constituted unlawful
assemble at about 11.00 a.m, in the place of occurrence on 01.10.2014. The
defacto complainant has stated in the complaint that on the date and the
time, the petitioners along with the some other persons scolded him near the
gate to open it.. The next allegation is that they abused him in filthy
language and the third allegation is that they damaged the name board of the
Tamil Sangam. They also instigated the others to kill him. It is also stated
that they caused damage to the name board of the Tamil Sangam. Regarding
this, no materials has been collected by the Investigation Agency. Even in
the observation mahazar, nothing has been stated and the alleged damaged
board was also not recovered by the Investigation Officer.
7.According to the petitioners offence under Section 506 (ii) is not
attracted since no materials are available to file final report. He relies upon
the judgment of this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.9083 of 2017 and
Crl.OP(MD)No.8686 of 2017 S.Ramesh Vs State of Tamilnadu and
others dated 21.08.2018. It has been observed by this Court that to
constitute an offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC, a mere threat is not
enough and there must be an act in pursuance to the said threat, without
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
which an offence of criminal intimidation is not attracted. So, the point for
consideration is whether the allegation mentioned in the complaint as well
as the statement of the witnesses attract the ingredients of 506 (ii) IPC. As
mentioned earlier, overt act is that the petitioners and others threatened the
defacto complaint to open the gate and instigated the other persons to kill
him. But, because of these utterance, it is not the allegation of the defacto
complainant that he suffered criminal intimidation. So, reading of the final
report as well as the statement of the witnesses and the defacto complainant,
it is seen that there was only the mere oral threat and it was not real one and
also it is seen that it was only an outburst of words expressed by the
petitioners. So, the offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC cannot be said to
be attracted.
8.To attract offence under Section 294 (b), the allegation is that they
called him as dog and son of bitch. Moreover, it should have been taken
place in a public place. There is no allegation in the final report that the
petitioners abused the defacto complainant in a public place. So, in the
absence of any such ingredients the offences under Sections 294 (b), 427
and 506 (ii) would not be attracted. From the records, I am of the considered
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
view that this prosecution have been lodged due to some dispute over the
administration of the college as mentioned earlier. It is also seen that some
sort of commotion took place in the gate area because of the previous
enmity over the administration of the college. This shows that commotion
took place in the gate area has been blown out of proportion to launch this
criminal complaint. So, I am of the considered view that continuation of the
prosecution will amount to abuse of the process of law. So, charge sheet is
liable to be quashed.
9.Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.306 of 2015 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Madurai, is quashed and the
Criminal Original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.02.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
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 Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,
Madurai .
2.The Inspector of Police,
C-4, Thilagar Thidal Police Station (L& O)
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13259 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.8979 & 8980 of 2017
22.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
