Madras High Court
Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 March, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Inspector of Police
Bhramadesam Police Station
Villupuram District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.30 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Villupuram District and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman
Senior Counsel for
Mr.K.Balu
For Respondent : Mr.A.Natarajan,
State Public Prosecutor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in C.C.No.30 of 2015, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.2013, the petitioner gave a
statement in the press meet, as if some people, having abused other caste people,
were freely moving in the society. In view of such statement, there was a
communal tension, which culminated into riot, resulting damage to the
Government buses and also leading to a death of one lorry driver. Hence, a
compliant was made and FIR in Crime No.185 of 2013 was also registered against
the petitioner for the offences under Sections 153 and 153(A) of IPC. After
investigation, the same was taken on file in C.C.No.30 of 2015 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. Hence, the petitioner
came forward to file this Criminal Original Petition to quash the same.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the entire allegations are baseless and politically motivated. In order to curtail
the political movements of the petitioner, this false case has been foisted against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
him. He further submits that there is no material to substantiate the alleged
offences under Sections 153 and 153(A) IPC against the petitioner and therefore,
the initiation of the prosecution is totally liable to be quashed and the sanction
order also accorded after lapse of one year and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
4. The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
concedes that the materials collected by the prosecution would clearly indicate that
the offences under Sections 153 and 153(A) IPC have not been made out and
therefore, charge sheet as against the petitioner can be quashed. Hence, prays for
dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials.
6. It is well settled Law that the power of quashing of a criminal
proceedings should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of
rare cases. The court, is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint on
the basis of the evidence collected during investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and
others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held as
follows:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercising of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guide- ï7 myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised:
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
8. Similarly, it is also well settled that while exercising the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not expected to express any views on merits
related to the realm of appreciation of evidence to decide the credibility of the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
put forward.
9. When the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected by the
prosecution does not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused and the prosecution itself is instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance, this Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. It is also to be noted that in a catena of judgments reported in
[(2015)8 SCC 239 RAJDEEP SARDESAI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AND OTHERS] and [1993 Supp (1) SCC 499], the Apex Court held that judicial
process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. In
PEPSI FOODS LIMITED VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE reported in
(1998) 5 SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that summoning of an
accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into
motion as a matter of course.
11. The main charge as against the petitioner is that he gave a statement
in the press meet that some people were freely moving in the society, despite they
have abused the other community people. The entire allegation itself indicates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
that he has given a statement expressing his dissent against the Government for
not taking steps against some elements, who have abused the other dominant
communities. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when a person is expressing
his dissent for non-action of the Government against some bad elements such
statement cannot be construed to mean that it is incited the violence and gave
provocation with intent to cause riot. Similarly, the same also cannot be construed
to mean that there was a statement leading to promote any enmity between
different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, etc. Further, on a perusal of the entire materials collected by the
prosecution, it is seen that only the statements of the Police Constables have been
recorded. If the entire statements have been taken together as such, there is no
evidence available to continue the prosecution for the offences under Sections 153
and 153(A) IPC against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner gave a statement in
the press meet on 01.05.2013 and the sanction was granted by the State only on
20.08.2014, with the delay. For all the above reasons, I am of the view that
continuing the prosecution for the offences under Sections 153 and 153 (A) IPC is
an abuse of process of law.
12. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.30 of
2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Villupuram District,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
as against the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.30 of
2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Villupuram District,
is hereby quashed as against the petitioner herein.
13. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam,
Villupuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Bhramadesam Police Station
Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
Crl.O.P.No.28678 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
08.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
