Madras High Court
Palanikumar vs M.Devarajan on 29 April, 2022
1
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 29/04/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.16546 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.9820 of 2019
1.Palanikumar
2.Sangaiah
3.Mookaiah
4.Mathialagan : Petitioners/A1, A2, A3 and A5
Vs.
M.Devarajan : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records relating to the case in STC No.5624 of
2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai
and quash the same.
For Petitioners : M/s.C.Arockiaselvi
For Respondent : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
O R D E R
The petition has been filed seeking quashment of the
case in STC No.5624 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.6, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The case of the respondent in brief:-
He lodged a private complaint with the following
allegations:- He purchased the property, which lies on
the eastern side of his house, from one Murugan and
others, on 23/08/2007 situated in survey No.166/1
measuring about 3 cents and 207-3/4 sq. feet. He is in
possession and enjoyment of the property. The 2nd accused
wanted to purchase the above said property. Since he
purchased, they entertained grudge. The 5th accused was
residing in the opposite side and he was rearing dogs and
those dogs created some sort of nuisance. When that was
informed to the house owner, the 5th accused was directed
to vacate the house and accordingly, he vacated the
house. On 17/02/2013, the accused 1 and 2 damaged the
boundary stones and fencing. When that was resisted, he
was criminally intimidated. So, he lodged a complaint on
20/02/2013 before the Thiru Nagar Police Station. Since
no proper enquiry was undertaken, he lodged a complaint
before the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, on
20/02/2013. Even after that, there was no proper action,
he filed Crl.OP(MD)No.21228 of 2013 before this court
seeking a direction to register a case. That was allowed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by this court and it was sent to the Accused 1 and 2. So
to wreck vengeance, the 3rd accused was set up by A1, A2,
A4 and A5 to lodge a false complaint, as if the
complainant and his wife and son committed the offences
under sections 294(b), 323 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of
SC/ST (POA) Act. Based upon which, the complaint was
taken cognizance in Special SC No.97 of 2015 and they
were acquitted by the III Additional District Court,
Madurai, on 25/09/2017. That prosecution has been lodged
maliciously with an intention to defame the complainant
and his family members and to tarnish their image in the
society. The accused are liable to be punished under
section 211 IPC.
3.Seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings, A1,
A2, A3 and A5 have preferred this petition on the ground
that the private complaint is barred under section 195
Cr.P.C against the first petitioner. The other witnesses
and accused persons have given evidence before the trial
court with true facts. Only by giving benefit of doubt,
the case was acquitted. That case was properly
investigated and final report was also filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Heard both sides.
5.This petition has been filed on two grounds. The
first petitioner was working as Inspector of Police in
the Tamil Nadu Police. So, sanction under section 197
Cr.P.C is required for prosecuting him. Another ground
is that section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C bars filing of the
private complaint for the offence punishable under
section 211 IPC.
6.Now let us straightaway go to the provision of
section 211 IPC, which reads as follows:-
“211. False charge of offence made
with intent to injure.—Whoever, with intent
to cause injury to any person, institutes
or causes to be instituted any criminal
proceeding against that person, or falsely
charges any person with having committed an
offence, knowing that there is no just or
lawful ground for such proceeding or charge
against that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both; and if such criminal
proceeding be instituted on a false charge
of an offence punishable with death,
1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment
for seven years or upwards, shall be
punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
7.Here, the ground on which the private complaint
has been filed is that it was a total malicious
prosecution on their part in lodging the prosecution in
Special SC No.97 of 2015, which ended in acquittal. In
that case, an observation, that was made by the trial
court has been stated in the complaint. We need not go
into the correctness of the finding that has been
rendered by the trial court, while disposing the criminal
case.
8.The attempt that was made by the complainant to
file criminal appeal with a delay in preferring the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal against the judgment of acquittal in the above
said Special SC No.97 of 2015 did not succeed. That was
dismissed by this court in Crl.MP(MD)No.9602 of 2019 in
Crl.A(MD)SR No.32324 of 2019, dated 19/02/2020. The
learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit
that the accused persons have been acquitted not due to
absolute lack of evidence or absolute falsify of the
prosecution, but they have been given benefit of doubt.
The ingredients of section 211 IPC does not attract.
Because absolutely, there was no intention on the part of
the petitioners in lodging the prosecution maliciously or
knowingly fully well that the charge is not true. We need
not concentrate much on this issue, which was decided by
the trial court. Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C clearly bars
the prosecution under section 211 IPC, otherwise than a
complaint by the concerned court. Here absolutely, no
steps have been taken by the respondent to approach the
concerned court to lodge a complaint under section 195(1)
(b) Cr.P.C. Without resorting to, such a private
complaint has been filed, which is clearly barred by the
above said provision. On the sole ground, I am of the
considered view that the entire prosecution is liable to
be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.But however, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would submit that criminal proceedings have
been initiated against the first accused and others by
procuring the complainant, who is no way connected with
the issue. This is the clear observation that has been
made by the trial court, while disposing the case.
According to him, it is clear case of malicious
prosecution. But even though, the contention on the part
of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent may
or may not be true, as mentioned earlier, he ought to
have taken steps as per law. Having failed to follow the
procedures, the criminal prosecution will amount to
nothing, but abuse of process of court. So the contention
on the part of the respondent is rejected and
accordingly, the prosecution is liable to be quashed.
10.Event though various judgments have been cited by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to
sustain his argument, in view of the clear bar, I am not
referring to the judgments that were cited by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.In the result, this criminal original petition is
allowed. The case in STC No.5624 of 2019 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai is hereby quashed
against the petitioners. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29/04/2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
The Judicial Magistrate No.6,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
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.
Crl.OP(MD)No.16546 of 2019
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
