Madras High Court

Ariharan vs The State Represented By Its on 1 April, 2022

                                                                 1

                                     BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                         DATED: 01.04.2022

                                                              CORAM:

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6079 of 2022
                                                                and
                                              Crl.M.P(MD) No.4229 and 4231 of 2022
                     Ariharan                                                           ...Petitioner


                                                                     Vs.
                     1. The State represented by its
                        The Inspector of Police,
                        Kudankulam Police Station,
                        Tirunelveli District-627 104
                        (Crime No.332 of 2012)

                     2. P.Thangaraj                                                    ...Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
                     call for the entire records pertaining to C.C.No.170/2020 in Crime No.332 of
                     2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram and quash the same
                     in so far as the petitioner is concerned.


                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.L.P.Maurya

                                        For Respondents     : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                        No.1                  Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

in C.C.No.170 of 2020 in Crime No.332 of 20121 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram.

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

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 6.9.2012 at about 9.00a.m

when the de-facto complainant was in his tea shop, the activists and

protestors of Atomic Unit, Koodangulam gave a bit notice to the defacto

complainant in which they have requested the village people in and around

Idynthakarai to gather for a meeting. They have also requested the defacto

complainant to take part in support of the meeting and when it was

negatived, they have abused him in filthy language and threatened that they

have will allow him to run the shop and threatened him with dire

consequences. When it was questioned by the neighbors, they have went out

of the place by saying that they will come again and attack him. Afraid of the

same, after taking some time, the defacto complainant has lodged a

complaint before Koodangulam Police Station annexing the bit notice issued

by the protestors of the Atomic Energy Unit, Koodangulam. Hence, the

petitioner along with other accused persons were charged for the offence

punishable under sections 147, 294(b), 120(B), 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.

332 of 2012 and after completion of investigation ,it has been taken on file

in CC No.170 of 2020 by the Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

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

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the Coordinate Bench of this court in a batch of cases viz., Crl.OP(MD)Nos.

2064 of 2020 etc., dated 13.03.2020 has observed that on the strength of

mere omnibus statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, this petitioner

has also been roped in as an accused. The petitioner has not rushed to the

Court immediately. At the same time, continued pendency of the impugned

prosecution constitutes an abuse of legal process.

5. At the time of agitation, the petitioner was not at all involved in the

occurrence and without properly verifying the identify of the persons during

the course of investigation, how the police is able to figure out this petitioner

among 5000 nos of people is also unbelievable and no materials have been

collected during the course of investigation to identify each and every person

involved in the occurrence.

6.No doubt, in the final report, it has been stated that more than 5000

people involved in the occurrence including women and children, who

assembled in the seashore area for making protest. Their aim was not to

cause any damage to the public property or damage to anyone, much less

than the police officials. It appears that it was a peaceful demonstration at

one stage. Finding that at one stage it went to uncontrollable stage of

dispersing the mass, in that process, it appears that two vehicles belongs to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the Police Department have been damaged. No doubt that causing damage

to the public property is a serious offence, which has to be properly tried. But

at the time same time, the circumstance under which the above said

occurrence taken place is also kept in mind.

7.As mentioned earlier, it was a fear protest made by the villagers,

feeling that if any new power plant is established, their very existence will

become danger. No doubt, this was a false apprehension in the minds of the

villagers. That is why, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in

the case of G.Sundarrajan Vs. Union of India [(2013)6 SCC 640] has

elaborately discussed and requested the Government to educate the people

and take all necessary steps to remove the misapprehension in their minds.

8. The Petitioner's implication in the present matter is absolutely

frivolous and mere-omnibus statement may not constitute offences against

the Petitioner since criminal trial is contemplated only on the basis of

definitive allegation of commission of offence by every individual involved. As

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2012(13)SCC 614 has

categorically held that ''A Criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the

character of fishing and roving enquiry. It would not be permissible in law to

permit a prosecution to linger, limp and continue on the basis of a mere hope

of expectation that in the trial some material may be found to implicate the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

accused. Such a course of action is not contemplated in the system of criminal

jurisprudence that has been evolved by the Courts over the years. A criminal

trial, on the contrary, is contemplated only on definitive allegations, prima

facie, establishing the commission of an offence by the accused which fact

has to be proved by leading unimpeachable and acceptable evidence in the

course of the trial against the accused.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.Sundarrajan Vs.Union of India

reported in 2013(6)SCC wherein the whole incident as well as establishment

of Koodangulam Nuclear Power Plant Project has been discussed. It is a

classic case of recent times, which deal and discuss about the necessity of

establishing such power plants in the interest of the development of the

country and scientific explorations. A detailed study has been made in this

case and during the course of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of

the view that all the cases that have been registered against the protestors

touching the protest against the establishment of the power plant may by

dropped. Para No.244.14 of the judgments reads as under:

244.14 Endeavour should be made to withdraw all the

criminal cases filed against the agitators so that peace and normalcy

be restored at Kudankulam and nearby places and steps should be

taken to educate the people of the necessity of the plant which is in

the largest interest of the nation particularly the state of Tamil Nadu.

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

10. Further it is settled law that criminal trial cannot be allowed to

assume the character of fishing and roving enquiry on contrary criminal trial is

contemplated only on definite allegations, prima facie establishing the

commission of an offence by the accused which fact must be proved by

leading unimpeachable and acceptable evidence.

11. All the allegations are general in nature it is only a general

allegation made against this petitioner. Since such like this nature,

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of

process of court and law.

12.In view of the above, this criminal original petition is allowed and

accordingly, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.170 of 2020 in Crime No.332 of