Madras High Court
Madasamy vs State Through on 18 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5342 & 5344 of 2021
1.Madasamy
2.Priyatharshan
3.Esakkimuthu
4.Maharajan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State through
The Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
In Crime No.462 of 2019
2.Vijikumar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the impugned
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
proceedings in PRC.No.10 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Alangulam and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Edin Brough
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No Appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
impugned proceedings in PRC.No.10 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Alangulam.
2.According to the petitioners, the first respondent police has
registered FIR in Cr.No.462 of 2019 and thereafter filed final report for
the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 332, 353, 506(ii) IPC
r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and the same was
taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam in
PRC.No.10 of 2021. The prosecution case is that on 02.12.2019, when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
the defacto complainant was driving a bus bearing Reg.No.TN-72-
N-1237, in the route Tirunelveli to Tenkasi, the accused persons agitated
as against the arrest of Thiruvalluvan, who is the leader of Tamilpuli
party and blocked the bus in the middle of the road and broken the glass
of the bus by throwing the stone. Bus conductor also sustained injury in
the said occurrence. They also abused and threatened the defacto
complainant. Hence, FIR has been registered. In fact, the party people
conducted protest on 02.12.2019. But the petitioners herein are not the
members of the above said party and they did not participate in the above
said agitation conducted by the Tamilpuli party people, only because the
petitioners are the same community people, their names were included
and the first respondent police was also not investigated the matter in a
proper manner. The petitioners were not present in the place of
occurrence. The petitioners are completed their studies and waiting for
their career and the first petitioner had applied for the job in Railway
Recruitment Board and the second petitioner had applied for the jon in
Central Industrial Security Force and the third petitioner is completed his
Engineering studies and the fourth petitioner is working as a Sweeper in
the Kurippankulam Panchayat. Because of this false case, the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
are affecting very much. There is no specific overt act attributed as
against the petitioners herein. All the allegations are general and omnibus
and therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
3.No counter was filed by the respondents.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend
that the second respondent has preferred the false complaint as against
the petitioners and based on the same the first respondent registered FIR
in Cr.No.462 of 2019 and thereafter, without conducting proper
investigation, filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the
leanred Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam in PRC.No.10 of 2021. Now, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court, FTC, Tenkasi in S.C.No.466
of 2021. At the time of filing this petition, the case was at the stage of
PRC and now it was committed to the Sessions Court. The petitioners
have not committed any offence as alleged in the charge sheet and the
first petitioner had applied for the job in Railway Recruitment Board and
the second petitioner had applied for the jon in Central Industrial
Security Force and the third petitioner is completed his Engineering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
studies and the fourth petitioner is working as a Sweeper in the
Kurippankulam Panchayat. Because of this false case, the petitioners are
affecting very much. Hence, pending case is clear abuse of process of
law and thereby, case is liable to be quashed.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent would contend that based on the complaint given by the
second respondent, the first respondent registered FIR and thereafter,
investigated the case. Since prima facie materials are available as against
the petitioners, the first respondent filed final report and thereafter, case
was committed to the Sessions Court, FTC, Tenkasi in S.C.No.466 of
2021. Since there are prima facie materials available as against the
petitioners, they have to face the trial and hence, this petition is liable to
be dismissed.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the
records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
7.On perusal of records shows that on the date of occurrence, there
was agitation for the arrest of one Thriuvalluvan, who is the leader of
Tamilpuli party and thereby, the agitators waylaid the bust and damaged
the mirror of the bus by throwing stones and in the said occurrence, the
bus conductor was also sustained injuries. Hence, complaint was given
by the second respondent, who is the bus driver and thereby, FIR was
registered and after elaborate investigation, the first respondent filed
final report and the same was on file in PRC.No.10 of 2021 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam. Now, the case is committed to
the Sessions Court, FTC, Tenkasi in S.C.No.466 of 2021.
8.According to the petitioners, they completed their studies and
they have searching job. Due to the registration of this false case, their
future will spoil. Further, according to the petitioners, the allegations are
general and omnibus. There is no specific overt act as against the
petitioners. As per final report, all the accused were involved in the
alleged occurrence. However, on perusal of records revealed that the
allegations are common and omnibus in nature. There is no specific
overt act as against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied
upon the judgment in Crl.O.P.Nos.17947 & 17949 of 2020 in a case of
S.Karthik Vs. State by The Inspector of Police and another, wherein this
Court held as follows:-
7. In the identical circumstances, this Court in the
decision dated 14.12.2017, rendered in Crl.O.P.No.14296
of 2017 [ V.Subramanian Vs. The State through the
Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem]
has quashed the proceedings for the absence of specified
overt act against each and every student and the relevant
portion of the judgment rendered in the abovesaid case is
extracted below:
"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 criminal trial is contemplated
only on the basis of definite allegations of commission of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
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
charge-sheet or in any of the materials collected in the
course of investigation any positive role of either of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
appellants,i.e., G.K.Bhat and R.K.Arora has been disclosed
in the matter of renewal and encashment of the fixed
deposits. 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
accused-appellants 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
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 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
accused-appellant G.K.Bhat and R.K.Arora.”
10.On careful reading of the above said judgment, it is clear that
without specific overt act, case against the petitioners can be quashed by
this Court. In this case also there is no specific overt act as against the
petitioners. In view of the above said judgment and considering the fact
that the petitioners are degree holders and searching jobs and considering
all other aspects, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned charge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
sheet. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and
proceedings in S.C.No.466 of 2021 pending on the file of the FTC,
Tenkasi is quashed as against the petitioners herein. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gns
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Alangulam.
2.The Sessions Court, FTC,
Tenkasi.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
P. DHANABAL,J.
gns
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2021
18.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
