Madras High Court
A.Thangadurai vs The Executive Magistrate Cum on 21 June, 2021
CRL.O.P(MD).No.8089 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :21.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
CRL.O.P(MD).No.8089 of 2021
CRL.M.P(MD).No.4160 of 2021
1.A.Thangadurai
2.T.Arunachalam
3.V.Murugan
4.V.Thangadurai
5.A.Arunachalam
6.V.Chithiraikani
7.Krishnamoorthy @ Krishnasamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Executive Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Serndhamaram Police Station,
Tenkasi District,
Crime No.449 of 2019.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P(MD).No.8089 of 2021
3.Maharajan
4.Durairaj
5.Thirumalaimuthu @ Chelladurai
6.Subramanian
7.Amsudurai
8.Kumaresan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, to call for the records in impugned proceedings Aa3/M.C.02/2020(107) dated
09.11.2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same in so far as the
petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For R1 to R4 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in
impugned proceedings Aa3/M.C.02/2020(107) dated 09.11.2020 on the file of the first
respondent and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P(MD).No.8089 of 2021
2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent Police registered a
case in Crime No.449 of 2019 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.
Based on the First Information Report in Crime No.449 of 2019, the proceedings
under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. were initiated by the first respondent in which, the
petitioners have been arrayed as “B” party in Aa3/M.C.02/2020(107). “A” and “B”
parties mentioned in the proceedings are from the same village and belong to same
community. So, the first respondent ought not to have arrayed these persons as “A”
and “B” parties. Moreover, before initiating proceedings, the first respondent has not
satisfied himself with regard to the requirements to be satisfied under Section 111 of
Cr.P.C. So, the proceedings initiated are unlawful. Therefore, the “A” party, who are
the respondent Nos.3 to 9 herein, have filed Crl.O.P(MD).No.3108 of 2021 before this
Court, challenging the proceedings. By order dated 26.02.2021, this Court quashed the
order passed by the Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankarankovil. After lockdown was lifted, the first respondent is insisting the
petitioners to appear before him for enquiry. Hence, the present petition has been filed
mainly on the ground that since the proceedings itself came to be quashed by this
Court, nothing survives for further proceedings against these petitioners by the first
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P(MD).No.8089 of 2021
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
4. As mentioned earlier, the only ground on which the petition came to be filed
is that the proceedings initiated by the first respondent in Aa3/M.C.02/2020(107) are
unlawful. Further, this Court, by order dated 26.02.2021 in Crl.O.P(MD).No.3108 of
2021 which was filed by the “A” Party, has set aside the order passed by the Executive
Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil, based on the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Krishnamurthy
vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri and
others reported in 2017 (1) CTC 680. So, when the order passed by the Executive
Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil, itself has been quashed,
nothing survives for further proceedings against these petitioners by the first
respondent. It appears that due to some misconception, the first respondent is insisting
upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry. The proceedings are one and the same and
arraying the parties as “A” and “B” will not have any impact on the outcome of the
proceedings. So, the proceedings itself has become extinct now and the question of
continuing the proceedings does not arise. Further, it appears that the first respondent
is entertaining a misconception of law over this aspect. Accepting this aspect, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that appropriate orders may be
passed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P(MD).No.8089 of 2021
5. In view of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to set aside the order
passed by the first respondent herein in Aa3/M.C.02/2020(107) dated 09.11.2020,
insofar as these petitioners are concerned. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition
stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
21.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ssb
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P(MD).No.8089 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J
ssb
To:
1.The Executive Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Serndhamaram Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
CRL.O.P(MD).No.8089 of 2021
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
