Madras High Court
R.Mani vs Kabilan on 5 November, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
CRL.OP(MD). No.1413 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.OP(MD). No.1413 of 2023
and
CRL.MP(MD). No.1255 of 2023
1. R.Mani
2. Thangaraj
3. Subramani ... Petitioners / Accused 1 to 3
Vs.
Kabilan ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to Spl.S.C.
No. 36 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy and quash the same.
For Petitioners : M/s.K.Arunraj
For Respondent : M/s.M.R.Srinivasan
for M/s.S.Muthukrishnan
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.OP(MD). No.1413 of 2023
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Spl.S.C. No. 36 of 2022 on the file of the learned I
Additional and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
3. The respondent/complainant is a practicing advocate. He seems
to have applied for a patta and he went to the revenue office on
12.08.2021 to enquire about the same. There was a wordy quarrel with
the officers working in the Taluk Office and the allegation is that the
respondent/complainant was assaulted and he was abused in filthy
language and he was threatened. Initially based on the complaint given
by the respondent, an FIR was registered in Crime No. 1168 of 2021 and
it was investigated and closure report was filed as mistake of fact.
Thereafter, a private complaint came to be filed by the respondent which
was entertained and cognizance was taken and process was issued to the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before this Court.
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 27.01.2023, this Court
passed the following order:-
“The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the first petitioner is working as Office
Assistant in Srirangam Taluk office and the petitioners 2
and 3 are also Government Servants, who are working
along with him in the Government Office. On 12.08.2021,
the respondent, who is an Advocate had come to their
office and also abused and assaulted them. In respect of
which, on the complaint given by the first petitioner, a
case in Crime No.696 of 2021 was registered against him
for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 353 IPC
on 13.08.2021. As a counter blast, the respondent had
given a complaint before the very same respondent, in
respect of which, a case in Crime No.1168 of 2021 was
registered on 23.12.2021 against the petitioners. The
Srirangam Police, after conducting due enquiry, had
referred the case of the respondent as 'Mistake of Fact'.
However, without filing any protest petition, the
respondent has straightaway, on the very same set of
false allegations, filed a private complaint against the
petitioners. He would further submit that it is a case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
personal vendetta where a false complaint has been
given.
2.Heard. Perused the materials available on
record.
3.There shall be an order of interim stay of all
further proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2022, on the file
of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge
(PCR), Trichy, for a period of four weeks.
4.The personal appearance of the petitioners in
Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2022, before the learned I Additional
District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy, is dispensed
with for the present.
5.Notice to the respondent returnable by four
weeks.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed
to take private notice on the respondent.
7.Post the matter after four weeks.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. In the case in hand, complaints were given from both sides and
based on the complaint given by the first petitioner who was working as
a Revenue Inspector in Taluk Office, Crime No. 696 of 2021 was
registered against the respondent. For the same incident, the respondent
also gave a complaint and crime No. 1168 of 2021 was registered against
the petitioners herein. The case and counter case was investigated by the
police and both the FIRs were closed as mistake of fact.
6. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint thereafter.
The respondent has also mentioned about the earlier FIR registered
which resulted in closure as mistake of fact.
7. The core issue that arises for consideration in the present case is
as to whether the Court below before taking cognizance ought to have
considered the materials collected by the police and the closure report
filed by the police in both the cases as mistake of fact.
8. The above issue is no longer res integra and it is covered by the
earlier orders passed by this Court. Useful reference can be made to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
judgment of this Court in Narayanamma and Others Vs. Chikka
Venkateshaiah reported in (2019) 2 LW(Crl) 522 and
Alaguthangamani and Others Vs. Saravanan reported in 2022 (4) MLJ
(Crl) 156. In these judgments, this Court has categorically held that the
Court has to necessarily apply its mind on the closure report and the
materials that were collected by the police while filing the closure report.
9. In the case in hand, admittedly, there was a case and counter
case and both the FIRs ended up by filing closure report as mistake of
fact. While so, the private complaint came to be filed before the Court
below on the same set of facts. There is no bar in the Court below
entertaining the private complaint on the same set of facts. However,
while taking cognizance, the Court below has to necessarily deal with the
closure report that has been filed in both the FIRs and the materials that
were collected by the police to justify coming to such a conclusion.
Admittedly, none of these reports and the materials were filed along with
the private complaint and the Court had no occasion to apply its mind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. In the light of the above discussion, the cognizance order
passed by the Court below in Spl. S.C. No. 36 of 2022 is hereby set
aside. The Court below has to call for the closure report that has been
filed in Crime Nos. 696 of 2021 and 1168 of 2021 on the file of the
Srirangam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli and also the materials that were
collected by the police while investigating the case and counter case. The
Court has to apply its mind on those materials and the closure report and
thereafter, take a decision regarding taking cognizance of the private
complaint filed by the respondent.
11. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the
above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
05.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
pal
Order made in
05.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
