Madras High Court
Prabhu vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 18 September, 2024
Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024
&
Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMALKUMAR
CRL.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024
&
Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024
1. Prabhu
2. Rajesh
3. Mohan
4. Janani
5. Vijayarangam ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. State represented by Inspector of Police,
Veppankuppam Police Station,
Vellore.
(Cr.No. 296/2022)
2. Kumar ..Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition to call for the proceedings of the FIR
in Crime No. 296 of 2022 dated 30.11.2022 on the file of the 1st respondent
and quash the same.
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No. 22850 of 2024
&
Crl.M.P. No. 12976 of 2024
For Petitioner :: Ms. R. Prem Rajakumari
For Respondents :: Mr.S. Udayakumar,
Govt.Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 296 of
2022 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) & 326
IPC have filed this quash petition.
2. The gist of the case against the petitioners is that on
30.11.2022, at about 9.30a.m, the de facto complainant Kumar, S/o.
Parthasarathy, 14th Ward Councillor, who is the owner of JCB, had sent his
JCB to load manure. Near Ongapaadi Pillaiyar Temple, one of the residents,
by name, Ragini, had dumped pile of river sand in front of her house for
some construction activity and the driver of the JCB had parked his vehicle
near that place. After parking the vehicle, he was enquiring the de facto
complainant’s brother as to from where the manure had to be loaded. At that
time, the 1st petitioner, Prabhu, who had prior political enmity with the de
facto complainant, had taken photographs of the JCB parked near the pile
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
&
of river sand to project as if the de facto complainant was using the JCB to
illegally excavate and transport river sand. When the de facto complainant
questioned the same, Prabhu, after informing his brother Dharani @
Loganathan, used abusive words and took a wooden log and beat the de
facto complainant on his left side back and face. Janani/4th petitioner herein
used abusive words and Vijayarangam, father of Prabhu/5th petitioner herein
had taken a stick from nearby place and had beaten the de facto
complainant/Kumar. The other accused, namely, Rajesh and Mohan
threatened the de facto complainant showing sticks. Thereafter, the de facto
complainant had been taken to Adukkamparai Government Hospital, Vellore
and he had taken treatment as an in-patient and lodged the complaint.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that
the de facto complainant, being a Ward Councillor, is using his political and
muscle power in illegal mining of river sand, which was questioned by
Prabhu, the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner had lodged a complaint against
the de facto complainant as early as on 27.12.2021 to the District Collector
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
&
alleging that the de facto complainant was engaged in illegal sand mining
operations utilising a JCB and a tractor, neither of which has proper
insurance or permit for such purposes. The 1st petitioner had in fact made
complaints to various authorities including the Chief Minister’s cell. In
response to the complaint sent by the 1st petitioner to Chief Minster’s Cell,
by reply dated 29.03.2022, the Executive Engineer, Melpalaru Delta
Division had informed the 1st petitioner that steps have been taken to ensure
that illegal mining and smuggling of river sand is prevented and team
consisting of police personnel, revenue authorities and other officials
concerned are vigilant and taking all possible steps to curtail theft of river
sand. According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant had
lodged a false complaint. Further, in this case, the 5 th petitioner, namely,
Vijayarangam, is a disabled person and his four fingers had been amputated
as early as on 20.01.1983. The medical certificate in this regard has been
produced. This being so, the entire family of the 1st petitioner and his
students have been falsely implicated in this case. The respondent Police
have not conducted proper investigation and not considered Prabhu being
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
&
assaulted, the accident register issued by Government Hospital, Anaicut.
The investigation is biased to save and support the Councillor and to further
act as a deterrent for others, to raise their voice against the Councillor on
illegal mining of river sand, the above case has been foisted. Learned
counsel further submitted that the 1st petitioner was assaulted and a case in
crime No. 18/2023 was registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 323,
324 and 506(ii) IPC against the de facto complainant Kumar, Nilakandan,
Parthiban and Ajithkumar. The case came to be registered only after
sustained fight and taking of all possible legal steps. In fact, the 1st
petitioner was assaulted and the respondent Police assigned CSR No. 702 of
2022. Thereafter, Crime No. 18 of 2023 registered. Hence, it is in the
nature of case and counter and both the cases to be investigated and
concluded following the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in T.
Balaji V. State (Crl.O.P. Nos. 4587 of 2024 etc batch, judgment dated
08.08.2024) and Police Standing Order 566.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
&
case in Crime No.18 of 2023 has been registered at the instance of the 1 st
petitioner Prabhu. In that case, the accused are Kumar, S/o. Parthasarathy,
the de facto complainant herein, Nilakandan, Parthiban and Ajithkumar.
This occurrence in Crime No. 18 of 2023 had taken place on 30.11.2022 at
9 a.m. near Ongapadi Pillayar Temple. The scene of occurrence in respect of
both crime numbers is one and the same. The occurrence of Crime No. 18
of 2023 took place at 9a.m. and in respect of Crime No. 296 of 2022, the
occurrence had taken place at 9.30a.m. He submitted that as regards Crime
No. 18 of 2023, the case closed as ‘mistake of fact’ in RCS 19 of 2023 dated
06.04.2023, but no RCS notice served to the parties concerned. Learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would also submit that charge sheet kept
ready in respect of Crime No. 296 of 2022 in which there is no reference to
Crime No. 18 of 2023. He fairly submitted that both the cases ought to have
been investigated together and thereafter, following the Full Bench judgment
of this Court stated supra, further course of action to be taken.
5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
&
record.
6. In the light of the submission of the learned Government
Advocate (Crl.Side) that no RCS notice served on the parties concerned in
respect of Crime No.18 of 2023 and both the complaints in Crime No.18 of
2023 and 296/2022 are in the nature of case and counter, this Court sets
aside the RCS notice issued in 19 of 2023 pertaining to Crime No. 18 of
2023. The Investigating Officer is directed to conduct investigation in both
Crime Nos. 296 of 2022 and 18 of 2023 following the aforesaid Full Bench
judgment of this Court and Police Standing Order 566.
7. With the above direction, the criminal original petition stands
disposed of. Consequently, criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.09.2024
nv
M. NIRMALKUMAR,J.
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
&
nv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Veppankuppam Police Station,
Vellore.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High court Madras.
&
18.09.2024
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
