Madras High Court
Sofia Sornajini vs State Through on 17 July, 2023
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.11033 and 11035 of 2019
Sofia Sornajini ...Petitioner
Vs
1.State through
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi City.
(Crime No.21 of 2013)
2.The Inspector of Police,
South Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
(Crime No.21 of 2013)
3.Rathimala ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records pertaining to the
criminal proceedings in S.C.No.33 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court for
trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Thoothukudi and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed
For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For 3rd Respondent : Mr.R.Sakthivel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
ORDER
This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.33 of 2020 on
the file of the Special Court for trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Thoothukudi
2.According to the petitioner, the third respondent herein made a false
complaint against the petitioner before the second respondent and based on
the false complaint, the first respondent registered a FIR in Crime No.21 of
2013 under Sections 341 and 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation,
the respondent Police filed a final report as against the petitioner and another.
During the pendency of the case, A2 died.
3.The case of prosecution is that A1 had stolen the ATM card of the
third respondent issued by the Indian Overseas bank, Chidambaram Nagar
Branch, Thoothukudi, for her savings bank account No.287 and swindled a
sum of Rs.1,38,000/- from the bank account between 06.12.2010 and
26.01.2011. Further it is alleged that inspite of admitting the guilt, the
petitioner and her husband A2 eluded from repaying the money and the
complaint was lodged before the Inspector of Police, South Police Station,
Thoothukudi on 16.08.2011, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner and her
husband A2 abused the third respondent in the name of caste in a public place.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
Thereafter, the first respondent has filed a final report on 02.12.2013 before
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi for the offences under
Sections 420, 341 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act @
Section 341 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The third respondent in
another proceedings in C.C.No.736 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi in which she was the defacto complainant,
gave a complaint against the petitioners and others under Sections 493, 494,
506(ii) and 496 of IPC. In the above said proceedings, all the accused were
acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi vide
judgment dated 25.10.2018.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that
the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has
been falsely implicated in this case and there is a delay of eight months in
lodging the FIR. Out of vengeance, this false case has been foisted against
him. Even as per the complaint, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
(POA) Act would not rise, since the public place has not been mentioned.
Further the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in the
earlier proceedings in C.C.No.736 of 2017, the petitioner has given a
deposition. Hence, the defacto complainant herself admitted that the false case
is given by her regarding that incident. Therefore, S.C.No.33 of 2020 is liable
to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
5.The learned counsel for the third respondent would contend that based
on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent police
have registered a FIR and the police have investigated the case elaborately
and since prima facie materials are available to constitute the offence, the first
respondent has filed the final report. The Court has taken cognizance and
taken on file as S.C.No.33 of 2020. At this stage, the petitioner has to face the
trial and this Court cannot invoke inherent power, since there is no prima facie
grounds to quash the charge sheet and this petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would
contend that the third respondent has given a complaint alleging that the
petitioners and others abused the third respondent in her caste name and
swindled the money by taking the ATM card of her savings bank account and
swindled a sum of Rs.1,38,000/- and thereby she lodged the complaint before
the first respondent police and the first respondent police registered the FIR in
Crime No.21 of 2013 and the first respondent investigated the case and filed a
final report. Thereafter the Special Court has taken cognizance and taken on
file as S.C.No.33 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 420, 341 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act @ Section 341 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of
SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioner has to approach the trial Court. Hence, this
petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
7.Heard both side counsels and perused the materials available on
record.
8.The main contention of the petitioner is that there is a delay of eight
months lodging the complaint and out of personal vengeance, this case has
been foisted. The petitioner and the third respondent are being advocates, who
practiced earlier under one Senior Advocate. There is misunderstanding
between them and therefore, in order to take vengeance, this false complaint
has been foisted, but the above said fact has to be established by the trial
Court by conducting trial. Already the respondent police have filed the final
report based on elaborate investigation. This Court at this stage cannot invoke
the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., since the offences are grave in nature.
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited framed guidelines and as per the said guidelines, this Court
declined quash the present case and the petitioner has to contest the case in
trial Court and all the grounds taken by the petitioner are matter of trial.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the
deposition given in the earlier proceedings and as per the deposition, she
admitted the false case given by her. As far the deposition rendered in earlier
proceedings is concerned, it has to be fullfil the conditions of Section 33 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
Evidence Act, now this Court cannot look into the same, since it is matter of
trial. The above said documents have to be looked into at the time of trial by
the trial Court and this Court at this stage cannot discuss about the reading of
the said deposition.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the
following judgments:-
(i)Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3
Supreme Court Cases 330
(ii)Harshendra Kumar v. Rebatilata Koley and others reported in (2011)
3 Supreme Court Cases 351
(iii)Victor Paul and another v. State reported in (2002) MLJ (Crl.) 202
(iv)Jeyaramaraja and others v. Inspector of Police in Crl.A.No.295 of
1999.
11. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner will not be applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the
case and the facts in this case are distinguishable from the cases relied upon
by the petitioner. As discussed supra, this Court has no warrant to invoke the
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is
liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
12.At his juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would further represent before this Court that the personal appearance of the
petitioner may be dispensed with and also a direction may be given to the
learned trial Judge to expedite the trial proceedings and complete the
proceedings within a period of stipulated time.
13.As far as dispensing the personal appearance of the petitioner is
concerned, the trial Court has to decide depending upon facts and
circumstances of the case. As far as speedy trial is concerned, as the case is
pending from the year 2016, it is appropriate to direct the learned trial Judge
to expedite the trial and complete the trial proceedings as early as possible
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
14.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed
of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Mrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
P. DHANABAL,J.
Mrn
To
1.The Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases
under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Thoothukudi.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi City.
3.The Inspector of Police,
South Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P(MD).No.18796 of 2019
17.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
