Madras High Court
Mr.K.Ayyanar vs The State Rep. By Its on 10 August, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4651 of 2019.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 10/08/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.34651 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.2857 of 2019
Mr.K.Ayyanar : Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
1.The State rep. By its
Sub Inspector of Police,
Tenkasi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.453 of 2018) : R1/Complainant
2.Mr.Dirai Raj : R2/De-facto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in connection
with case in Crime No.130 of 2019 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4651 of 2019.
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the case in STC No.139 of 2019 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 29/08/2018 at
about 9.00 pm, the de-facto complainant was standing near
Harihara Vinayagar Kovil Street, Mottaiyan Kovil and
talking with friends. At that time, the accused persons
came to that place under impression that they have been
talking about him, prevented the de-facto complainant,
abused him in filthy language, caused assault with hands
and torn the dress. He was also criminally intimidated.
Based upon the complaint, the case was registered in Crime
No.453 of 2018 for the offences under sections 341, 294(b),
323 and 506(i) IPC. After completing the formalities of
investigation, it was taken cognizance in CC No.130 of 2019
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has
been filed by the petitioner on the ground that a counter
case was given by the petitioner and that was not properly
investigated. But the complaint against the petitioner was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4651 of 2019.
proceeded and the complaint given by this petitioner was
closed as 'Mistake of Fact', over which, he has also filed
a protect petition. Apart from that, it is also stated
that the complaint given by the petitioner was closed, on
01/09/2018. But the summon was issued to him to appear for
enquiry, on 27/09/2018, 28/09/2018, 23/11/2018 and
24/11/2018. Only on 24/11/2018, it was informed that the
complaint given by him was closed as 'Mistake of Fact'.
4.Heard both sides.
5.The only ground on which this petition came to be
filed is that proper procedure was not followed by the
respondent police while investigating the case in Crime
Nos.452 and 453 of 2018. The Crime No.452 of 2018 was
registered on the basis of the complaint given by the
petitioner.
6.Reading of the FIR in Crime No.452 of 2018 shows
that the occurrence said to have taken place, on 29/08/2018
at 8.30 pm, wherein, it has been stated that on the date of
the occurrence, on 29/08/2018, he was scolded by the
accused person and also criminally intimidated. He was
assaulted, pushed down, caused damage to the vehicle, over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4651 of 2019.
which a case in Crime No.452 of 2018 for the offences under
sections 147, 294(b),323 and 506(ii) IPC was registered.
7.It has been stated by the complainant to the effect
that there was assault by the petitioner on the particular
date. It is also seen that the petitioner is neighbour and
the complaint that was given by the petitioner was closed
as 'Mistake of Fact' on 10/10/2018. Now the protect
petition has been filed by the petitioner before the
concerned court.
9.But on perusal of the records shows that on
20/10/2018 in respect of the enquiry in Crime No.452 of
2018, the petitioner was summoned, on 24/11/2018. He was
informed that his case was closed as 'Mistake of Fact, on
10/10/2018 itself. But why the summon was issued is not
properly explained. This shows that proper investigation
was not undertaken by the respondent in both the matters.
The procedure to be adopted by the respondent, while
investigating the case and counter as stated in Sulian @
Chinnathambi v. State, 2009 (1) MWN (Cr.) 423 (DB): 2009
(3) MLJ (Crl.) 372.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4651 of 2019.
10.It is also seen that on the basis of the protect
petition filed by the petitioner, further investigation was
ordered in Crime No.452 of 2018 and another investigating
officer was appointed. Now further investigation is pending
before the respondent police and it has not been completed
so far.
11.In the light of the above said development and
since counter case is also under investigation, it is not
proper on the part of this court to quash the criminal
proceedings. As ordered by the concerned Judicial
Magistrate, the respondent has to conduct the further
investigation and followed the procedure set out in PSO588A
and the judgment of Chinnathu Vs State. If at all only
limited relief can be granted to the petitioner.
12.So the trial process in this matter may be kept in
abeyance till the investigation completed in Crime No.452
of 2018. As directed by the court, the investigation in
Crime No.452 of 2018 must be undertaken within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4651 of 2019.
13.With the above said direction, this criminal
original petition stands disposed of. Consequently
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.08.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4651 of 2019.
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4651 of 2019
10/08/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
