Madras High Court
M.Angusamy vs State Rep. By on 20 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.183 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.183 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1968 of 2021
M.Angusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Puliyankudi Police Station.
(Crime No.102/2012)
2.Pothilingam ...Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records from the lower court in Judgment in CC.No.378
of 2014,dated 10.07.2020 and the consequent order dated 10.07.2020 in Crl.MP.No.
1450 of 2020 in CC.No.378 of 2014 on the file of the Learned Additonal District Munsif
Cum Judicial Magistrate,Sivagiri and duly set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Prabhu
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
No.1 Government Advocate
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.183 of 2021
For Respondent : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar
No.2
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed to call for the records from the lower court
in Judgment in CC.No.378 of 2014,dated 10.07.2020 and the consequent order dated
10.07.2020 in Crl.MP.No.1450 of 2020 in CC.No.378 of 2014 on the file of the Learned
Additonal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,Sivagiri and duly set aside the same.
2. It is seen that the defacto complainant was working as Revenue Assistant of
Puliangudi Municipality Officer. He along with 03.04.2012 PW.3 went to the house
one of the accused enquired about the non payment of property tax, thereafter they
returned to office and on the same day at about 1.30 pm., the accused came to the
Puliangudi Municipality Office and uttered obscene words against the defacto
complainant and threatened him with fear of death and obstructed him in performing
his duty as Government Servant. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent
registered a case in Crime No.102 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353,
506(i) of IPC and after completion of investigation had filed final report in and the
same has been taken cognizance in CC No.378 of 2017 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.183 of 2021
3. The petitioner was examined as PW. 1 and he deposed that he went to
Ramasamy street for collecting property tax and the people over there questioned
them about the property tax and on the higher side P.W.1 to PW.3 informed the people
to come to Municipal office regarding their query. Later he lodged complaint before the
Municipal Commissioner against the accused alone whom he could identify. He further
deposed that he did not write the complaint and his signature was obtained by the
police and therefore he was unaware of the contents in the complaint, therefore he
was treated a hostile and was cross examined on the side of the prosecution. During
cross examination, he deposed that whatever he stated in his chief examination are all
false, therefore the trial Court while acquitting the accused invoked the provision under
Section 344 of Cr.P.C to take cognizance of the offence for giving false evidence, for
which the petitioner was issued show cause notice and he should not be punished for
the offence under Section 193 of IPC.
4. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it is seen that the had only signed in the
complaint and he does not know the contents of the complaint, however he deposed
about the threat with the dire consequences while he went for collecting property tax,
however he was treated as hostile and in the cross examination he admitted that what
he said in the chief are all false. Therefore he again reiterated his evidence and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.183 of 2021
same was recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C, therefore it would not amount to
perjury and he cannot be punished for this negligent act.
5. That apart the petitioner was examined in chief after a period of five years
from the date of offence. Considering the above, the initiation of proceedings under
Section 344 of Cr.P.C and issuance of show cause notice as against the petitioner in
Crl.M.P.No.1450 of 2020 cannot be sustained.
6.In view of the above, invoking provision under Section 344 of Cr.P.C to take
cognizance for the offence under Section 193 of IPC is hereby set aisde and the show
cause notice issued as against the petitioner is also also set aside and the revision is
allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
20.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
aav
To:
1.The Inspector of Police,
Puliyankudi Police Station.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.183 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,
aav
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.183 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1968 of 2021
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
