Madras High Court
Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss vs State Represented By on 25 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.26711 of 2017
Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
B1-Town Police Station,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
(Crime No.289 of 2014)
2.Mr.P.Gunasekaran,
Tahsildar,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.28 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No. I, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District and quash the same.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.28 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I,
Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District, for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
188, 294(b), 341, 353, 171H, 279, 336, 506(i) and Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the 2nd respondent/Election Observer is
that, while the petitioner/A1 was engaged in Election campaigning, the other
accused who are the cadres belonging to his party, had in violation of
promulgatory orders for Election, had formed an unlawful assembly and violated
the enforced Election Rules and Regulations and they had hoisted their party flags
in their two-wheelers. During the same time, A3 and A9 had driven the vehicle in
a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the life and personal safety of
others. The further allegation is that when the de-facto complainant had
questioned them, A5 to A9 had abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and had prevented him from discharging his official duty and had criminally
intimidated him. On the complaint given by the 2 nd respondent/de-facto
complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.289 of 2014. The 1 st respondent,
after completion of investigation, has filed the Final Report and the case was taken
up for trial in C.C.No.28 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Dharmapuri for the offences under Sections 147, 188, 294(b), 341, 353,
171H, 279, 336, 506(i) and Section 34 of I.P.C. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner/A1 to quash the said proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2016.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
was a candidate contesting for the Election to the Parliamentary Constituency of
Dharmapuri. Other than being a candidate in the Election, he has not committed
any offence as alleged in the final report. Even as per the complaint, the petitioner
was stated to have involved in the Election campaigning and the other accused are
stated to have involved in the offence. Even taking into consideration, the entire
materials, no averments are available against the petitioner as far as instigating the
other accused to commit the alleged offence is concerned. The 1st respondent in
the final report, has cited nine witnesses and none of the witnesses have spoken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
anything about the petitioner or his involvement in the said offences. The
petitioner further states that he has been implicated only based on the alleged
confession stated to have been recorded from the co-accused while they were in
custody. No other legal material is available as against the petitioner. Further, the
registration of the case for the offence under Section 148 of IPC is without
obtaining necessary permission which is not proper. The other averments are also
not made out as against the petitioner and there is nothing on record to show that
the petitioner shared the common intention with the other accused. He would
further submit that the proceedings pending against the petitioner are nothing but
abuse of process of law, thereby, he seeks to quash the proceedings.
4. Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was a candidate for
the Dharmapuri Parlimentary Constituency during the year 2014. On the last day
of campaigning, while the petitioner was campaigning along with the cadres
belonging to the petitioner's party, then in violation of the Election Rules, had
come in about 100 two-wheelers hoisting their party flags and 2 of the accused
have driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the life of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
people around. When it was questioned by the de-facto complainant, who is the
Election Observer, the other accused persons have criminally intimidated and
abused him in filthy language. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
further submit that though none of the witnesses have spoken about the presence
of the petitioner, co-accused A3 and A4 have confessed that they have acted as
per the directions of A1. He would fairly concede that other than the confession of
A3 and A4 recorded, while they were in custody, there is no other material
available against the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the materials available on
records.
6.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was a candidate for the
Election and that while he was campaigning along with the cadres, the cadres are
stated to have violated the Election Rules and when it was questioned by the de-
facto complainant, they have abused him and intimidated him. The allegation of
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, is also made out against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
other accused. Further other than the alleged confession of A3 and A4, there is no
material stating about the presence of the petitioner and his implication.
7.In this context, it is useful to extract the relevant portion of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P.Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR
1960 SC 866:
“(i)Where it distinctly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuation of a proceeding for example for want
of sanction;
(ii)where the allegation in the first information report or
complaint taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety do not
constitute the offence alleged;
(iii)where the allegation constitutes an offence, but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the proceedings
pending on the file of the Trial Court as against the petitioner is nothing, but an
abuse of process of law and they are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the
proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No. I, Dharmapuri District are hereby quashed as against the petitioner and the
Criminal Original Petitions is allowed.
25.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
rgm/vkr
To
1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
2.The Inspector of Police,
B1-Town Police Station,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
3.Mr.P.Gunasekaran,
Tahsildar,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
rgm/vkr
Crl.O.P.No.26711 of 2017
25.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
