Madras High Court
K.Palanisamy vs State By on 3 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219, 16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219, 16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.8724, 8725, 8799, 8800, 8818, 8820, 8838, 8839 of 2021,
6478, 6479, 6476 & 6482 of 2020
K.Palanisamy ... Petitioner
in Crl.O.P.Nos.16073 &16162 of 2021
N.Selvan ... Petitioner
in Crl.O.P.Nos.16219 & 16297 of 2021
1.C.Marutha Pandi
2.B.Sunil Jayan
3.S.Anantharaj
4.N.Niranjana ... Petitioners
in Crl.O.P.Nos.16763 & 16767 of 2020
Vs.
1.State by
The Inspector of Police
M-5, Vadavalli Police Station,
Coimbatore – 641 041.
2.P.Selvaraj ... Respondents
in all petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219, 16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
to call for the entire records connected with the cases in C.C.Nos.112 and 113
of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Coimbatore, and
quash the case insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Rajaguru
in all petitions
For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
in all petitions
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners herein, viz., K.Palanisamy has been arrayed as A-39;
N.Selvan has been arrayed as A-28; C.Marutha Pandi has been arrayed as A-7;
B.Sunil Jayan has been arrayed as A-19; S.Anantharaj has been arrayed as
A-42; and N.Niranjana has been arrayed as A-73, for the offences under
Section 2 of Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 r/w. Sections
353, 309 and 149 IPC. Totally 75 persons including the petitioners herein
have been implicated for the offences under Section 2 of Prevention of insult
to National Honour Act, 1971 r/w. Sections 353, 309 and 149 IPC. The
occurrence is said to have taken place on 23.02.2011, when a girl student, who
is arrayed as 70th accused, was alleged to be abused by a Professor of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219, 16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
Government Law College, subsequent to which, there was a strike and during
the course of the strike, the students had torched the Indian National Flag.
After investigation, the petitioners herein have been charge-sheeted along
with others. A perusal of the statement of the witnesses, does not implicate
any specific overt act to the petitioners herein.
2.In identical circumstances, this Court, by relying upon a decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, quashed the proceedings on the ground that in the
absence of specific overt act against each and every student the continued
proceedings would be fatal. The relevant portion of the said decision in the
case of V.Subramanian v. The State through Inspector of Police,
Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem, in Crl.O.P.No.14296 of 2017, dated
14.12.2017, reads as under:
“5.On a perusal of the complaint as well as the statement
of the witnesses under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C, it is seen that
none of the students have been implicated with overt acts for
constituting the offences for which they are charged for.
6.It is generally averred that they had joined together
and threatened the staff by throwing stones and damaging the
college properties. The omnibus statement may not constitute
the offences against each and every individual student, since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219, 16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
criminal trial is contemplated only on the basis of definite
allegations of commission of the offence by every individual
student.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sathish Mehra v.
State of N.C.T. Of Delhi and Anr, AIR 2013 SC 506 and
relevent paragraph of the said order read as follows:
“19.The view expressed by this court in Century
Spinning's case (supra) and in 1.Muniswamy's
case (supra) to the effect that the framing of a
charge against an accused substantially affects
the person's liberty would require a reiteration
at this stage. The apparent and close proximity
between the framing of a charge in a criminal
proceeding and the paramount rights of a
person arrayed as an accused under article 21
of the Constitution can be ignored only with
peril. Any examination of the validity of a
Criminal charge framed against an accused
cannot overlook the fundamental requirement
laid down in the decisions rendered in Century
Spinning and Munisawamy (supra). It is from
the aforesaid perspective that we must proceed
in the matter bearing in mind the cardinal
principles of law that have developed over the
years as fundamental to any examination of the
issue as to whether the charges framed are
justified or not. So analysed, we find that in the
present case neither in the FIR nor in the
chargesheet or in any of the materials collected
in the course of investigation any positive role
of either of the appellants,i.e., G.K.Bhat and
R.K.Arora has been disclosed in the matter of
renewal and encashment of the fixed deposits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219, 16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
All that appears against the aforesaid two
accused is that one was the Chief Manager of
the Bank whereas the other accused was at the
relevant time working as the Senior Manager.
What role, if any, either of the accused had in
renewing the two fixed deposits in the sole name
of Anita Mehra or the role that any of them may
have had in the payment of the amount due
against FD No.21/91 to Anita Mehra or in
cancelling the FD No.9/92 renewed in the sole
name of Anita Mehra and thereafter making a
fresh FD in the joint Anita Mehra and Satish
Mehra, is not disclosed either in the FIR filed or
materials collected during the course of
investigation or in the charge-sheet filed before
the Court. There can be no manner of doubt
that some particular individual connected with
the Bank must have authorized the aforesaid
acts. However, the identity of the said person
does not appear from the materials on record. It
is certainly not the prosecution case that either
of the accusedappellants had authorised or even
facilitated any of the aforesaid action. In such a
situation to hold either of the accused-
appellants to be, even prima facie, liable for
any of the alleged wrongly acts would be a
matter of conjecture as no such conclusion can
be reasonably and justifiably drawn from the
materials available on record. 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 and expectation that in the trial some
material may be found to implicate the 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219, 16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
only on definite 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. We are,
therefore, of the view that the criminal
proceeding in the present form and on the
allegations levelled is clearly not maintainable
against either of the accusedappellant G.K.Bhat
and R.K.Arora.”
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that specific charges have been levelled against the accused
based on the statements obtained from witnesses and if at all
the petitioners have any grievance, they can cross-examine the
witnesses at the time of trial and quashing the charge sheet is
not warranted.
9.As seen in the above said decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the instant also, there is no specific overt act
imputed against each and every student, with reference to the
offences he is charged for. In the absence of the same, I am
unable to comprehend as to how the trial would be proceeded
to arrive at a logical conclusion by implicating each and every
individual student.
10.Though the petitioners herein are 5 among the 49
students, the overt acts as against all of them are one and the
same. None of the accused have been individually implicated
and no specific overt acts are attributed against the individual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219, 16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
students and hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioners
herein who are arrayed as accused 34,35,31,2 and 38 are
entitled to succeed in this Criminal Original Petition.”
3.The present case is also similar to the above cited decision, since the
petitioners have not been implicated with specific overt acts. Hence, the
impugned proceedings in C.C.Nos.112 and 113 of 2012 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Coimbatore, stands quashed so far as the
petitioners herein are concerned.
4.These Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.03.2022
mkn
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI,
Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police
M-5, Vadavalli Police Station,
Coimbatore – 641 041.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219, 16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
mkn
Crl.O.P.Nos.16073, 16162, 16219,
16297 of 2021, 16763 & 16767 of 2020
03.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
