P.Raghu Ganesh vs The Additional Superintendent Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6395 Mad

                                                                               CRL.R.C.(MD) No.274 of 2021

                                   BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
                                                  RESERVED ON : 20.04.2021
                                                PRONOUNCED ON : 03.09.2021
                                                            CORAM
                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                                 CRL.R.C.(MD) No.274 of 2021
                                                            and
                                                 CRL.M.P.(MD)No.2735 of 2021

                     P.Raghu Ganesh                                         : Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                     The Additional Superintendent of Police,
                     CBI, SC-II, New Delhi.                                 : Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. r/w.
                     Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to
                     the order, dated 10.03.2021 passed by the learned I Additional District and
                     Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.No.165 of 2021 in S.C.No.470 of 2020
                     filed under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
                               For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan
                                                    Senior Advocate
                                                    for Mr.K.Elangovan

                               For Respondent     : Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri,
                                                    Assistant Solicitor General of India
                                                                ***



                     1/7



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                             CRL.R.C.(MD) No.274 of 2021


                                                            ORDER

This petition is filed as against the order dismissing the petition filed

seeking to discharge the accused from the charges framed against him by the

learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that he had filed petition under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.165 of 2021 in S.C.No.470 of 2020

seeking to discharge the petitioner/accused from the charges. After having

heard the discharge application, the learned Judge dismissed the claim of the

petitioner seeking discharge. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the

petitioner that the offences under Sections 211 and 218 of IPC cannot be

investigated by the police. It has to be filed by a public servant as a private

complaint.

3.The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner

seeking discharge is found unacceptable and unreasonable. Considering the

controversies surrounding the death of the father and son under the provisions

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.(MD) No.274 of 2021

of IPC, the charges framed under Sections 342, 201, 183, 193, 211, 218, 302

r/w. 34 and 302 r/w. 109 of I.P.C. The contention of the learned Counsel for the

revision petitioner is that the offence under Section 188 IPC cannot be

registered or enquired by the police officials. While so, the petitioner herein, as

accused A3, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, sought discharge

from the charges. The learned District Judge, dismissed the application and

framed the charges. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the discharge petition, the

accused had come to this Court by filing this petition.

4.Mr.Anantha Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per

the ruling of this Court reported in 2018 (2) L.W (Crl.) 606 in the case of

Jeevanandham Vs. State and Crl.O.P.No.7922 of 2019 Order dated

30.08.2019 in the case of Sri Raja Vs. State that the Public Official is not a

Police Officer and any Officer can file a private complaint before the learned

Judicial Magistrate regarding the offence under Section 188 of IPC. Therefore,

without filing a private complaint by the Public Servant, the Police cannot

initiate/register the FIR. He also relied upon the ruling of this Court in

Crl.O.P.No.7922 of 2019 in the case of Sri Raja Vs. State wherein it was held

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.(MD) No.274 of 2021

that for offence under Section 188 of IPC, the Police cannot register an FIR.

Based on that, he sought to quash the proceedings regarding offence under

Section 188 of IPC before the learned Single Judge.

5.He had filed a petition on behalf of the accused to discharge the

accused from the case in S.C.No.470 of 2020 on the file of the learned First

Additional District Judge, Madurai, and the same was dismissed by the learned

First Additional District and Sessions Judge. Against the order of dismissal,

this Revision had been filed.

6.Considering the interpretation of the statutes by the learned Single

Judge, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that offence under

Section 188 of IPC cannot be registered as an FIR by the Police Officials. It

had to be done only by the officials belonging to the other Departments of the

Government who are empowered to enforce Law and Order, only they can file

a criminal case, private complaint against the violation of authority of the

Public Servant. Therefore, the petition filed by the learned Counsel on behalf

of the petitioner/accused was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, against

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.(MD) No.274 of 2021

which this Revision had been filed.

7.Considering the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in 2018 (2) L.W (Crl.) 606 in the case of Jeevanandham Vs. State and

Crl.O.P.No.7922 of 2019 Order dated 30.08.2019 in the case of Sri Raja Vs.

State, this Court is of the opinion that insofar as offence under Section 188 of

IPC is concerned, the violation of authority for which FIR was registered is

found against the Ruling of this Court.

8.At the same time, the line of arguments put forth by the learned

Assistant Solicitor General of India that if the First Information Report is filed

along with other Sections of IPC, the same cannot be quashed, is found

justified. Therefore, the petition seeking to discharge from the case filed by the

accused herein is found acceptable. At the same time, the trial Court had

framed the charges including Section 188 of IPC and trial had commenced, by

the time the case was argued. At that stage, if the discharge petition dismissed

by the learned Single Judge, is allowed it will result in confusion in the mind of

the learned trial Judge. Thereby, the trial will be jeopardised. To avoid such

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.(MD) No.274 of 2021

exigencies, the accused is discharged only from Provisions under Section 188 of

IPC and not from the entire case. Regarding the other offences, evidence is to

be recorded and on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Judge shall

pronounce Judgment.

9.This Criminal Revision is partly allowed discharging the

petitioner/accused only from the charge under the Provisions of Section 188 of

IPC. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

03.09.2021

Index : Yes / No cmr/dh

To

1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2.The Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, SC-II, New Delhi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.(MD) No.274 of 2021

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

cmr/dh

Order made in CRL.R.C.(MD) No.274 of 2021

03.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/