Madras High Court
Velayutham vs C.Arun on 11 September, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD) No.451 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :11.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.R.C(MD) No.451 of 2019
Velayutham ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.C.Arun
2. Saravanan
3. Abdul Sahib
4. Viswanathan ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Criminal Revision Petition is filed under section 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 28.05.2019 made
in C.M.P.No.1565 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II,Kulithalai, Karur and set aside the same and allow the Criminal
Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.G.Kannan
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Kulithalai, Karur in C.M.P.No.1565 of
2019 dated 28.05.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD) No.451 of 2019
2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the earlier
occasion, hence the matter is ordered to be listed under the caption 'For
dismissal'. Even today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Though none appeared on behalf of the petitioner since the matter is
criminal revision as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the
criminal revision has to be disposed on merits, hence this Court after
hearing the respondent and perusing the records inclined to pass orders on
merits.
3. According to the petition, the petitioner namely Velayutham had
given complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai,
Karur District under Section 200 of Cr.P.C stating that on 10.01.2019 at
about 9.00 a.m.,the sons of the petitioner namely Saran and Sugan were
travelling the two wheeler and at about 11.30 a.m., while they were
crossing Marudur Police beat, the first accused stopped the vehicle. At that
time when they questioned him why they were being intercepted there
arose a small altercation between the first respondent and the sons of the
petitioner. Thereafter the first respondent abused them in filthy language
and the respondents 2 to 4 who were present there had attacked the son of
the petitioner with lathies and caused severe injuries. After receipt of
information the defacto complainant went to place of occurrence and on
knowing about the incident gave complaint before the Superintendent of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD) No.451 of 2019
Police, no action was taken. Further inorder to escape from the clutches of
law the police officers filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police,
Kulithalai and the same was registered in Crime No.16 of 2019 for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) of IPC against the sons of
the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed a private complaint before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Kulithalai, Karur District and the learned
Magistrate has dismissed the same vide order dated 28.05.2019, holding
that previous sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C was not obtained and no
prima facie case made out for taking cognizance.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order this revision has been filed on
the ground that police officer upto the rank of the Inspector of Police can be
removed by the Inspector General of Police and public servant must be of
the rank not removal of officer saved by or with the sanction of the
Government. In this case the order of sanction of order is not necessary
and the respondents can be removed by the Inspector General of Police.
The trial Court solely dismissed the petition on the ground that previous
sanction under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C is necessary and the same is against
the judgement report in 2018(2) Lw.Crl. The traffic police do not have
power to physically assault the public and they can only enquire about the
persons and they cannot take the law in hand and attack the sons of the
petitioner. These aspect have not be taken into consideration by the trial
Court and therefore the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD) No.451 of 2019
aside.
5. No representation on behalf of the petitioner
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend
that the alleged occurrence took place while discharging the official duty by
the respondents and thereby previous sanction under Section 197(1) of
Cr.P.C is necessary and at the same time the complaint itself there is no
specific allegation as against the respondents and there are major
discrepancies between the complaint and statement recorded by the
learned Magistrate thereby the private complaint was dismissed by the
learned Magistrate.
7. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
respondent and perused the records.
8.Upon perusing the records it is observed that on the date of
occurrence the petitioner's sons were riding in a two wheeler and at that
time the respondents have intercepted and enquired and at that time there
was a wordy quarrel between the sons of the petitioner and the
respondents. On the basis of the complaint given by the first respondent
First Information Report has been registered as against the son of the
petitioner in Crime No.16 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD) No.451 of 2019
353 and 506(i) of IPC. Therefore the petitioner filed private complaint
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai and the same was
dismissed on the ground that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C has not
been obtained and also there are material contradictions in respect of the
place of occurrence.
This Court also perused the sworn statement and on that perusal they
revealed that on 10.01.2019 when the son of petitioner, P.W.1 along with his
brother came by two wheeler the police stopped them and he also stopped
the vehicle, immediately the police slapped on his cheek and used obscene
words. When the same was questioned by the brother of P.W.2, he assaulted
on his mouth and he got blood injuries but they have not produced any
medical records for the above said injuries. Further there is no specific
words mentioned in the statement as about the obscene words and the
petitioner has not produced any said documents to prove the prima facie
case. However on perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate it
is observed that the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petition on two
grounds. First ground is previous sanction is necessary under Section
197(1) of Cr.P.C, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has
held that the officers not below the rank of Inspector of police can be
removed by the Inspector General of Police, thereby previous sanction
under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C., is not necessary to register the case against
the cadre of Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police and Constable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD) No.451 of 2019
However the learned Magistrate has not dismissed the application on
the sole ground and taking into account that the place of occurrence
mentioend as check post but in the compalint it is mentioned as Maruthur
Police beat at Kumaramangalam . Further discussed about the statements
given by the witnesses since there are discrepancies between the
statement of witnesses and the complaint the trial Court had dismissed the
petition. Therefore this no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court
and thereby the this Court has no warrant to interference with the order of
the trial Court, hence the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly the Criminal Revision stands dismissed.
11.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
aav
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.II,Kulithalai, Karur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD) No.451 of 2019
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
Crl.R.C(MD) No.451 of 2019
11.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
