Madras High Court

Ramanathan (A) Thoopakki ... vs State on 14 September, 2022

                                                                               CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Reserved on : 29.08.2022

                                               Date of Verdict : 14.09.2022

                                                           CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 and
                                                Crl.MP.No.9245 of 2021

                Ramanathan (A) Thoopakki Ramanathan                              ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                1.State, Rep by
                  The Inspector of Police,
                  M4, Sengundram Police Station,
                  Chennai 600 052
                2.Vetrivel                                                       ... Respondents


                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

                praying to call for the records relating to PRC.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the

                learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District and quash the

                same.

                                   For Petitioner       : Mr.V.Elangovan

                                   For Respondents
                                         For R1    : Mr.A.Gopinath,
                                                     Government Advocate(crl.side)
                                         For R2    : Mr.P.Krishnan

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 12
                                                                          CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021


                                                       ORDER

This criminal original petition was filed praying to quash the

proceedings in PRC.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-

II, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District, thereby taken cognizance for the offences

under Sections 294B & 307 of IPC and Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 in

crime No.592 of 2019 , as against the petitioner.

2. While pending the quash petition, the petitioner and the second

respondent amicably settled their issues by the joint compromise memo dated

29.04.2022.

3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first

respondent registered FIR in crime No.592 of 2019 for the offence under

Sections 294(b) & 307 of IPC (2 counts) and Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959.

After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the

same is pending for committal in PRC.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, Thiruvallur. While pending for committal, the

petitioner approached this Court to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.7 of

2021. While pending this quash petition, both the petitioner and the second

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

respondent entered into compromise and filed joint compromise memo dated

29.04.2022 and the second respondent has no objection to quash the

proceedings.

4. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

issues between them have been now settled amicably and the quarrel between

them is purely private in nature and have no impact on the society. Further, the

possibility of conviction is remote and no useful purpose will be served in

keeping the criminal proceedings pending.

5. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first

respondent / police filed counter and vehemently opposed to quash the

proceedings on compromise. The petitioner is a habitual offender and history

sheeter. In fact, he was let out on bail on default ground as contemplated under

Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. due to non filing of final report within the stipulated

time. Therefore, the second respondent completed investigation and filed final

report and the same is pending for committal in PRC.No.7 of 2021 on the file

of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, Thiruvallur. He is a history

sheeter rowdy in HS.No.14 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, M4,

Redhills Police Station, So far, he involved in the following previous cases: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

S Police Station, Crime Number Section No 1 M4 Redhills P.S., U/s 341, 353, 506(ii) IPC & Arms Act & Cr.No.96 of 2007 35 & 35(b) of TN Forest act r/w Rule 9 of TN Timber Transit Act 2 M4 Redhills P.S., 307 IPC 25(i) (B) of Arms Act Cr.No.272 of 2007 3 Ponneri P.S., U/s.among forest act & (ii) Timber Transit Cr.No.371/2011 Rules 35 & 36, 44(b), Section 21(i) & TN Forest Act 1968, Section 3, 1. Sec 55, 56 4 YSR Kadappa Dist. U/s 147, 148, 379, 353, 332, 307 r/w 149 Kodur PS IPC, 20(i)c ii, iii, iv, vi, x APF 20 APFA, 3 Cr.No.104 of 2016 PDPPA 5 Chittur Dist. Vayalpad Ps U/s 147, 148, 353, 307, 109 r/w 149 IPC Cr.No.76/2014 & 379 IPC Sec.20(1)(c )(iii)(iv) and (x) of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 sec.3 of Red Sanders wood and Red Sanders Transists Rule – 1989 6 Chittur Dist 1) 29,32 AP Forest Act Rompicherla Ps Cr.No. 2)Rule 3 AP Sandal wood & Red Sandars 63/2014 Transit Rules 1969

3) 29 Wild life (Protection) Act 1972

4) 353, 307, 379, 109 IPC r/w 55(2) Biological Diversity Act 2002 & 30 of Arms Act 7 Chittur Dist. 1) 29,32 AP Forest Act Rompicherla Ps Cr.No. 2) Rule 3 AP Sandal wood & Red 65/2014 Sandars Transit Rules 1969

3) 29 Wife life (Protection) Act 1972

4) 353, 307, 379, 109 IPC r/w 55(2) Biological Diversity Act 2002 & 30 of Arms Act 8 Chitthoor District 20 APFA, 30 Arms Act, 307, 353, 341 Barkarpet P.S., 148, 147, 149 IPC

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

S No Cr.No.64 9 Chitthoor District Barkarpet P.S., Cr.No.73/2014 10 Chitthoor District Barkarpet P.S., Cr.No. 54/2017 11 Chitthoor District Pakal P.S., Cr.No.86/2014 12 Chitthoor District G.D Nellore P.S., Cr.No.121/2014 13 Chitthoor District Panjani P.S., Cr.No.93/2014 14 Chitthoor District S.R.Puram P.S., Cr.No.78/2014 15 Chitthoor Cr.No.170/2014 16 Chitthoor District Sathivedu P.S., Cr.No.113/2014 Police Station, Crime Number Section of 2014 307, 353, 379 IPC, 20 APFA, 30 Arms Act, 341, 148, 147, 109, 149 IPC 54/2017 U/s 379, 120b r/w 34 IPC, 20(1) (d)(i)(a)(b) 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x), 36 r/w 32 APFA, 3APPSA U/s 379 IPC & Sec 29, 22 of AP Forest Act 1967 r/w rule 3 of AP Sandal Wood and Red Sander wood Transist Rules sec 29 of Wild life Act 1972 and 55(ii) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002 U/s 379 r/w 136 IPC 353,411 IPC, 32,29 APFA,34 IPC, 29 WLPA, 307, 379 IPC 25(1)(A), 24-B, 24-A Arms Act, 29 WLPA, 29, 32 APFA, 34, 109, 353, 379 IPC District Nagari P.S., 32 APFA, 34 IPC, 27 Arms Act, 29 WLPA, 29 APFA, 411, 379, 353, 307 IPC 109, 34,353,307,379 IPC

17 Kadappa District 147,148,379,307,353,120b,109,149 IPC, Chapadu P.S., 20 APFA, 3 Red Sandal, 3 PDPPA, 0 Cr.No.67/2016 WLPA 18 Kadappa District 307,379,147,148,353,120b,109r/w149 Duvvur P.S. IPC, 3 PDPPA, 20(1)(c) ii,iii,iv,vi,x,29-a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

S Police Station, Crime Number Section No Cr.No.70/2016 APF 19 Kadappa District Khajipet 147,148,353,120(B),379,r/w149 IPC & P.S., Cr.No.105/2016 Sec 20(i), (C) (ii)(iii)(iv),(vi) AP Forest Amendment Act 2016 20 Kadappa District 147,148,307,353,379,120b,109 r/w 149 Khajipet P.S., IPC, 20,1 APFA,3,4 PDPPA Cr.No.106/2016 21 Kadappa District Kodur 147,148,353,307,120b,379 r/w 149 IPC, P.S., Cr.No.105/2016 20(1)(c) ii,iii,iv,vi,x APF, 20 APFA, 3 Red Sandal, 3 PDPPA 22 Kadappa District 147,148,379,307,353,120b,109 r/w 149 Mannur P.S., IPC, 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x) APFA, 3 Cr.No.113/2016 PDPPA 23 Kadappa District 379,353,307,120b,109 r/w 34 IPC, Mydukur U/G P.S., 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x), 20(1)(d)(i) Cr.No.302/2017 (a)(b), 29(1)(4)(a) i (a)(b) APFA, 3 Red Sandal, 3 PDPPA, 51 WLPA 24 Kadappa District 379,307,147,148,353,332,120b,109,149 Mydukur U/G P.S., IPC, 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)(x), 20(1)(d) Cr.No.452/2017 APF, 3 Red Sandal, 29-i(a)(b) APFA, 3PDPPA, 417, 468, 471 IPC 25 Kadappa District 147, 148, 379, 307, 353, 120b, 109 r/w T.Sundupalli P.S., 34 IPC, 20,29 APFA, 3 Red Sandal, 3 Cr.No.107/20116 PDPPA, 0

6. Heard, Mr.V.Elangovan, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first

respondent / police, and Mr.P.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the second

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

respondent.

7. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in Crl.Apl.No.349 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019 in the case of the

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others with regard to

quashing the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC

on compromise, wherein after elaborately discussing the judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab

(2012) 10 SCC 303, Shiji @ Pappu & others Vs. Radhika and another (2011)

10 SCC 705, State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi (2014) 15 SCC

29 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014)6SCC 466, it is held as

follows:

“13.Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:

i)that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

dispute amongst themselves;

ii)such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;i

ii)similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code,on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra)should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein above;

v)while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused;the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

Therefore, section 307 of IPC and the Arms Act would fall in the category of

heinous and serious offence and therefore are to be treated as crime against the

society and not against individual alone. Hence, criminal proceedings for the

offence under Section 307 of IPC and/or Arms Act, etc which have a serious

impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute

amongst themselves. Further, while exercising power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable

offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on

society on the ground that there is a settlement / compromise between the

victim and the offender, the court is required to consider the antecedents of the

accused, the conduct of the accused i.e. whether the accused was absconding

and why he was absconding and how he had managed with the complainant to

enter into a compromise, etc.

8. In the case on hand, as stated supra, so far the petitioner has

involved in 25 previous cases and he had very bad antecedents. All the offences

are very serious in nature. He is also a history sheeter in HS.No.14 of 2020 on

the file of M4, Redhills Police Station. Considering the nature of offence

committed by the petitioner and also the conduct of the accused, this Court is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021

not inclined to quash the proceedings under compromise.