The petitioners, who are the accused in case pending in C.C. No.76 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri, seek to quash the proceedings against them. The case arises out of a complaint preferred by the mother of the first petitioner informing that the first petitioner, an estranged son, had sought to obtain properties which had been settled upon her daughters by her late husband and by resort to the community council whose members, acting in support of the first petitioner, had along with him committed several wrongdoings towards causing the petitioner's daughters to part with the property settled in their favour. As the complainant and her daughters were not willing to act as per the diktat of such body which required them to deliver properties to the first petitioner as also execute a power of attorney in his favour, they were subjected to intimidation, put to various difficulties and suffered social ostracisation. On the complaint of the second respondent/mother of the first petitioner dated 27.05.2009, a case was registered in Cr.No.215 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent for offences u/s.143, 341, 448, 384, 506 (i) IPC r/w 511 IPC. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet stands filed, which now has been taken cognizance of resulting in C.C. No.76 of 2009. The charge sheet reads as follows:
' SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTAGIRI Sub: Case Criminal case submitting final report reg.
Ref: Kotagiri P.S. Cr. No. 215/09 u/s. 143, 341, 448, 384, 506(i) r/w. 511 IPC @ 143, 341, 447, 384, 506(i) r/w. 511 IPC r/w Kattapanchayath.
...
Accused :
1. H. Thiyagaranan (46) S/o. (Late) Hutchi Gowder, Vincraft, Club Road, Kotagiri. & 11 others.
Accused A1 H. Thiyagarajan is the son of the PW-1 Mary Ammal. The other accused are Katta Panchayathars and members of so called 19 Village's Panchayath. Tr. Hutchi Gowder was land lord and A1 is the son of Hutchi Gowder, PWs- 2,3,4 and 5 are the daughters of Tr.Hutchi Gowder.
On 26.1.2008 at Nattakal during day time the marginally noted accused with intention to conduct Katta Panchayat and to pronounce illegal verdict, formed on unlawful assembly in Nattakkal within the jurisdiction of Kotagiri P.S. And Hon'ble Court and thereby the accused A1 to A12 committed on offence punishable under
section 143 IPC.
During the course of Panchayath on the same day and place the PWs 2& 3 were not allowed to witness the proceedings of the panchayath and hence restrained P.Ws 2&3 from witnessing the Panchayath and there by the accused A1 to A12 committed an offence punishable under
section 341 IPC.
On the same day, date and in shanthi house, horasholai within the jurisdiction of Kotagiri P.S and Hon'ble Court in pursuance of the illegal verdict the accused A7, A10, A11 and A12 illegally trespassed into the premises of PW.1 and thereby the accused A7, A10, A11 and A12 committed an offence punishable under
section 447 IPC.
On the same day, date and place the accused A7, A10, A11 and A12 attempted and criminally intimidated PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 to hand over the property as per the illegal Kattampanchayath verdict and to deliver the property to A2 and thereby the accused A7, A10, A11 and A12 committed an offence punishable under
section 506(i) 384 r/w 511 IPC.
During the course of overall transaction accused A1 in order to extract property from the complainant and with intention criminally intimidated with dire consequences through accused A7, A10, A11 & A12 and attempted to take the property on delivery, thereby the accused A1 committed an offence punishable under
section 506(i) 384 r/w 511 IPC.
The accused A1 A12 with intention to take the property on delivery by criminal intimation through Kattapanchayath, issued unlawful decrees of excommunication for not obliging the decrees of handing over the Shri Lakshmi Tea factory and Santhi house to A1 and there infringed the fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution of India and thereby. The accused committed an offence punishable under section Kattapanchayath.
Hence the charge.
Sd/-Inspector of Police Kotagiri Circle, The Nilgiris.
CHARGES UNDER SECTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED S.No. ACCUSED SECTION OF LAW
1. A1 A12 143 IPC
2. A1- A12 341 IPC
3. A7,A10,A11, A12 447 IPC
4. A7,A10,A11, A12 506(i), 384 r/w 511 IPC
5. A1 506(i), 384 r/w 511 IPC
6. A1- A12 Kattapanchayath.
Sd/-Inspector of Police Kotagiri Circle, The Nilgiris.'
2. The petitioners inform as follows:
(a) The petitioners submit that they all belong to the traditional and ancient Badaga community which has its own communal traditions in every respect, such as, in marriage, in death, in religious practice, in property divisions, settling of disputes between the members of the community etc. The people of the community live in different parts of the District of the Nilgiris. The areas are divided into four parts which are called Seemais, namely, Thodhanadu Seemai, Mekkunadu Seemai, Porangadu Seemai and Kundhe Seemai and together they are called 'Nakku Betta'. The petitioners submit that in every Seemai, each village has a Panchayat and for a certain number of villages there is a higher Panchayat and another higher Panchayat for all the villages situate within the particular Seemai. The petitioners humbly submit that the said Panchayat system has been in existence from time immemorial, to resolve disputes that arise between the people belonging to the community and the people of the community have very strictly respected the decisions of the village panchayats and have obeyed them without any murmur. In rare cases the issues were taken to the final and ultimate level of Panchayat which is before the leaders of the community constituting 'Nakku Betta'. The petitioners submit that in the panchayats conciliatory measures are taken to amicably settle the differences or disputes and bring about peace and communal harmony between the members of the community and in the event of either of the parties not being satisfied with the suggestions given by the Panchayat, which is a rarity, it is always open to the parties concerned to approach the Courts of Law.
(b) The first petitioner herein is an Advocate at Kotagiri and the son of Mr.J.Hutchi Gowder, who was a very highly respected Gowda leader in the community and a prominent Planter and Industrialist in Kotagiri. The defacto complainant is the wife of the said Mr.J. Hutchi Gowder. PW 2 to 5 are the sisters of first petitioner. Prior to his death on 31.05.2008, Mr.J.Hutchi Gowder had very clearly and specifically expressed his desire, in the presence of the defacto complainant, the first petitioner, his sisters and other family elders, to be buried in the premises of Sri Lakshmi Tea Industries and that the said premises be given to his son, the first petitioner. This was consented to and accepted by all at that time. After Mr.J.Hutchi Gowder's death, since, the defacto complainant and her daughters refused to honour his wishes by giving the said premises where his body was buried to the first petitioner herein, the first petitioner was constrained to approach the elders of his family and as no solution could be brought about he took up the issue to the village elders to redress his genuine grievances so as to fulfill his father's last wish and desire.
(c) Since the issue could not be resolved by the village elders, due to the non co-operation of the first petitioner's sisters to settle the issues, he was advised by the village elders to approach the nineteen villages Panchayat. At the Nineteen villages panchayat (Porangadu Seemai Panchayat) 2 sittings were held, in which his sisters were represented by Dr.Krishnamurthy (Husband of a sister Mrs. Vimala) Mr.T.N. Raju (Husband of another sister Mrs.Vijaya) and their son Mr.Dinesh Raju. It was of great importance that only the issue of giving of Sri Lakshmi Tea Industry, including the place in which late Mr.J.Hutchi Gowder was buried, to the first petitioner was discussed and nothing else. After giving all sufficient opportunity to put forward their respective grievances and after considering the sworn statement of T.Raju who expressed the last will and desire of the petitioner's father, the 19 village panchayat requested all to abide by the wishes of the first petitioner's father Late Mr.J.Hutchi Gowder.
(d) Without complying with the recommendations of the 19 village panchayat, the first petitioner's sisters Mrs. Parvathi Bhojan, Mrs. Vimala Krishnamoorthy and Mrs. Latha Velukumar filed a Civil Suit against him before the District Munsif at Kotagiri in O.S.No. 67 of 2008 and the same is presently pending disposal.
(e) In the said two panchayat sittings the procedure adopted was purely conciliatory and absolutely no pressure or intimidatory tactics, whatsoever, were used at any point of time. Since in the civil proceedings, they failed in their attempt to obtain an order of injunction, they, with a view to intimidate and harass the first petitioner by exerting political pressure, filed the complaint. As a matter of fact, one of the first petitioner's sisters had given a complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister's cell wherein she mentions the names of politically and administratively influential persons. The first petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the said complaint given by his sister and the respondent, who had earlier conducted a detailed enquiry, did not proceed with the enquiry after having found that no Katta Panchayat was conducted as alleged.
(f) It was only as per tradition and custom, to resolve the dispute/ issue relating to the property where late J.Hutchi Gowder, the Nineteen Village Panchayat was convened and held its sitting on 26.10.2008 and the said Panchayat was held at Nattakkal in a place of worship, in full public view, in which the leaders of various villages in Porangadu Seemai participated . On the said date the representatives of the defacto complainant were also requested to be present. The defacto complainant herself has submitted in her complaint that the panchayatdars are used to discuss disputes and give advice to the contesting parties. Thus, it is the admitted case of the complainant herself that petitioners 2 to 12 use to discuss disputes and give advice or conciliate disputes between the parties who approach the Panchayat to redress their grievances. Thus, admittedly, the said forum is legally recognised and as such, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as an 'unlawful assembly'.
(g) As regards the alleged offence under
section 384 IPC, the statements of PW1, 2 and 3 is that while the panchayat proceedings were going on the petitioners No.7, 5, 11 and 12 had come to the house of PW 1 and requested to transfer the properties in the name of her son, the first petitioner herein, for which she refused. There is absolutely no allegation, whatsoever, that the said petitioners threatened her or intimidated her while asking for the properties to be transferred in the name of her son. The statements of PW5 and 6 with regard to this are only hearsay in respect of the so called intimidation. The statement of PW1 is concurred by the statement of PW 2 to 4. Nothing has been stated that the above petitioners put PW 1 and others in fear of any injury to them or to any other person and thereby dishonestly induced them to deliver any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security to attract the offence of commission of extortion and the offence of criminal intimidation. Hence, the charge against petitioners No.7, 10, 11 and 12 for offence
Section 506 (i), 384 r/w.511 of IPC is not made out against them.
(h) In respect of the charge of
section 447 IPC against the petitioners No.7, 10, 11 and 12, excepting a vague allegation that the first petitioner along with the Panchayatdars went to the house of PW-1 and her daughters and demanded handing over of property, there is no specific allegations by PW-1 that they entered into the said property with intent to intimidate, insult or annoy the defacto complainant so as to constitute the offence of criminal trespass.
3. Sri. R. Gandhi, Senior counsel would urge on behalf of the accused Nos. 2 to 6, that the complaint which related to panchayats held on 26.10.2008 and 01.11.2008 had been preferred on 10.04.2009, the same had been registered in Cr. No. 76 of 2009 on 27.05.2009 and the charge sheet in the case had been filed on 21.09.2009. Learned senior counsel would submit that the conduct of a panchayat as per the community custom could not be termed an unlawful assembly. The fact that women were not allowed to attend panchayats held by the community was accepted in the very complaint. That is why the complainant and her daughters had not attended the same and there was no question of their having been prevented from doing so. As such they were not subjected to any wrongful restraint. The panchayat had only attempted to arrive at a settlement of the dispute and there was no question of any extortion. Attending the residence of the complainant to inform the decision of the panchayat would not amount to an act of criminal trespass nor would the offences of criminal intimidation or attempt to commit the same stand made out. The ingredients requisite to make out the offences alleged do not stand satisfied in the case. Learned senior counsel would submit that a writ petition was filed in W.P. No.21976 of 2010 in respect of the same matter and the same stood closed on finding that no offence stood made out. He would state that the panchayat system stood admitted by the complainant and the second respondent had preferred the present complaint after an attempt to obtain an order of interim injunction had failed. The first petitioner was a lawyer and the dispute was a mere civil dispute between him and his family members. All the accused were respectable leaders of the community whom the son of the family had approached. There was nothing wrong in approaching the community forum for settlement of the family dispute. The panchayat meetings had been held on 26.10.2008 and 1.11.2008. The complainant party had approached the civil court on 28.11.2008. On failure to obtain an order of interim injunction in their favour, they had after a period of 5 months, preferred the complaint on 10.04.2009 to the Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris District. After a delay of 40 days, the same was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 20.05.2009, the case had been registered on 27.05.2009. In circumstances where the connected Writ petition stood closed and the the statements allegedly recorded on 29.05.2009 informed of occurrence of 31.05.2009, it was apparent that the complaint case was false and could not survive.
4. Sri.A. Ramesh, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused 1, 7 to 12, would submit that malafidies in investigation was writ large from the fact that several statements of the witnesses which were allegedly recorded on 29.05.2009 had spoken to occurrences of 31.05.2009. This reflected the inherent improbability of the truth of the statements recorded and such would be reason enough for this court to exercise its powers under
section 482 CrPC. He would state that neither the complaint nor the final report informed details of who did what and when. This, in spite of the complaint having been prepared with the assistance of advocates and despite the same having been a well thought out one. On the circumstances surrounding the case he would submit as informed by learned senior counsel Sri R. Gandhi. Both senior counsel have referred to certain judgments which will be touched upon hereunder.
5. Sri.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant would inform that the panchayat in this case was convened for an improper purpose and the same was an unlawful assembly. Even if they be community leaders, they cannot claim to be above the law. The allegations made against the accused were serious in nature and minute details could now not be gone into towards undoing the prosecution case. In fact the complainant party had grievances against the investigating officer and mistakes pointed out regarding the dates could now not be relied upon by the accused. The fact that something was terribly amiss could well be gathered from the affidavit filed by the investigating officer in W.P No.21976/2010. Learned senior counsel would inform that the list witness No.22 Mr.I. Doraiswamy was a very senior member of the bar and he in public interest had moved the writ petition. Besides finding support for the prosecution case from the statements of the other witnesses, the statement of such list witness gave a clear and lucid picture of what had transpired. Learned senior counsel would rely upon the decision reported in K.Gopal v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2005 (4) CTC 241 to inform the serious concern of this court against the conduct of such 'Katta' panchayats.
6. On consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material placed before this court, we find that the complaint and statements do inform of matters, which if true, would constitute commission of offences. A charge sheet stands duly filed in the case and the same has been taken cognizance of by the lower court. What the learned counsel for the petitioners in effect require this court to do is to appreciate the veracity or otherwise of the material placed before the lower court. That, is not permitted of this court towards quashing proceedings in exercise of powers under
section 482 CRPC. It might even be that the offences which stand committed are not those as informed by the investigating officer in his charge sheet. To ascertain what, if any. are the offences that actually stand committed, would be an exercise for the trial court to undertake. From the fact that an hierarchical system of dispute resolution prevails within a particular community, it cannot be concluded that all that is complained of against the members of the panchayat must necessarily be false. In substance, the complaint is not against holding the customary panchayat but against using the same as a means of achieving unlawful ends. In the affidavit of the investigating officer in WP No.21976/2010, it is informed, 'that on receipt of the complaints, action was initiated and a thorough investigation was conducted, in which several persons were examined and charge sheet has also been filed. Several witnesses including the writ petitioner were also examined and the offence was proved as regards these unlawful orders passed by the respondents 7 14, who excommunicated the petitioner as well as Mrs.Mariammal and her daughters. Infact, the verdict has created a great pandemonium and fuss among the people of Kothagiri.
It is further submitted that after thorough investigation, charge sheet was also filed before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri on 21.09.2009. It is submitted that almost 25 witnesses were examined who have spoken about the conducting of Kangaroo Courts by the respondents 7-14 herein with the connivance of the 6th respondent. Infact, subsequent to the filing of charge sheet, the respondent 6,8 and 9 were arrested on 19.08.2009 and respondent 13 was arrested on 20.08.2009. However, the arrested persons were released on bail and the other Panchayatdars engaged in a road block for the arrest of the respondents 6, 8, 9 and 13 near the Court. Thereafter, the fourth respondent has also issued direction on 28.08.2009 about the illegal Kattapanchayat which was communicated to all the divisions of Coonoor Police Station. Though the 4th respondent has taken all necessary and strict action against the Panchayatdars, the Panchayatdars are still convening the illegal meetings thereby excommunicating several persons who lodged the complaints with 5th respondent for which also action is taken against the 6th to 14th respondents.
It is submitted that the respondents 7 14 are acting unconstitutional for which the 4th and 5th respondents are taking all necessary actions to control, and to curb the Kangaroo Courts conducted by the Panchayatdars. Complaints were received from various people like Kini Dharman on 16.06.2009, who was also excommunicated along with other 21 persons. Likewise one Mr.J. Mani, Jakkanarai Village has lodged a complaint on 3.6.2009 against the respondents 7 14 herein and few other persons for excommunicating him. On the same day one Mr.N.Krishnan and H. Prakash also hailing from Jakkanarai Village have also lodged similar complaints against the respondents 7-14. On 2.6.2009, one Mr.Rajamani from Aravenu Village, A. Shivakumar on 8.5.2009 has lodged similar complaints to take action on these Panchayatdars for excommunicating them. In fact all the above complainants were also examined as witnesses in the above complaint given by Mariammal.
7. Learned senior counsel Sri.R. Gandhi relied upon decision in Pepsi Foods Ltd & anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, towards informing that powers under
section 482 CrPC could be used by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. The decision in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajanlal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, was referred to as in such case the Honourable Apex Court had laid guidelines one of which was that a complaint could be quashed if the allegations therein taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not make out a prima facie case of commission of offences. The said judgment also was relied on to inform that, ' (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.' To reaffirm the principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal's case, decision on Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal & anr., (2008)17 SCC 157 and Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi (2009) 14 SCC 683, were touched upon. R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 516, was relied upon to inform that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to prosecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint. Decision in Hira Lal & ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors., (2009) 11 SCC 89, was relied upon to inform that the second complaint on the same fact and on similar allegations was not maintainable as an earlier complaint preferred by the sister of the first petitioner after detailed enquiry and on finding that no katta panchayat was conducted as alleged, had not been proceeded with.
8. The inapplicability of the decisions relied upon arise primarily because, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not able to arrive at a finding that the complaint allegations if taken as true would still not reflect the commission of offences. It is to be stated that the primary indication is contra. The decision in Hira Lal & ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors., (2009) 11 SCC 89, clearly is distinguishable. In the said case, a private complaint was dismissed against which a revision was preferred, which also was dismissed. Thereafter a fresh complaint was taken cognizance of. The decision in the case was rendered following the principle that a second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances and the case before the court was not one that disclosed any such exceptional circumstance. The decision will have no bearing upon the case before us.
9. Coming to the decisions relied upon by Sri A. Ramesh, it is to be informed that the same have no application in the facts of the present case. The decision on Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu & anr., (2009) 11 SCC 203, is relied upon to support learned senior counsel's contention that no specific role has been assigned to the accused. In such case, the Apex Court observed as follows:
'35. No specific role is ascribed to any of the aforesaid persons except for stating that the huge quantities of paddy were diverted by Accused 1 and made to disappear with the active assistance of Accused 2 to Accused 9. Without ascribing any specific role to any one of them the aforesaid allegation appears to us to be very bald and vague. Similarly the allegations made against Accused 2 and Accused 3 that they had helped their father in purchasing some property is also very vague as no specific role is ascribed to them.
36. In our considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution against the aforesaid accused persons (the appellants herein). There is no concrete and direct allegation against all these persons ascribing any definite role to each one of them in the offence alleged. The statements shown to us as allegations amounting to prima facie evidence against them, according to us, are very bald and vague statements on the basis of which no case could be made out.' The circumstances in which such observations came to be made are informed in paragraph 17 to 20.
'17. Mr G. Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when a sole proprietary firm had allegedly cheated some suppliers, the members of the family of such sole proprietor cannot be roped into a criminal prosecution especially in the light of the facts that the criminal complaint itself has been lodged as a counterblast to the insolvency petition filed by the owner of the sole proprietary mill and the investigating officers were not justified in roping in the innocent appellants herein despite the fact that there was no substantive allegation made against them.
18. It was further submitted that the matter is essentially having a civil profile and merely because many people have lodged criminal complaints, criminal prosecution was launched against Accused 2 and Accused 3 (the appellants herein) without any basis or an iota of evidence which has gone to the extent of spoiling the bright career and future of Accused 2 and Accused 3. He also submitted that the appellants herein have nothing to do with the daily conduct of the business, income derived therefrom or with regard to alleged selling of paddy stock and in view of this the High Court ought to have taken into account the hardship and damage of future/career of the appellants herein.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court had dismissed the petition of the appellant herein due to total non-application of mind as it failed to see that the rice mill was being run by Accused 1 as sole proprietary concern and Accused 2 and Accused 3 had nothing to do with the said sole proprietary concern and therefore the offences against Accused 2 and Accused 3 were not at all sustainable.
20. Learned counsel further submitted that due to illegal actions of the investigating officers and being hand in glove with the farmers the police made Accused 3 to lose one precious academic year as he could not attend the classes and thereby rendered himself liable to be disqualified for appearing in the examination due to shortage of attendance. According to him, although these facts were brought to the notice of the learned advocate who appeared in the matter in the High Court, unfortunately the same were not placed on record.' In support of the submission that the complaint/charge sheet were bereft of details of who did what and when reliance is placed on Neelu Chopra & anr. v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184. Such was a case wherein allegations were made relating to dowry demand and misbehaviour by the husband and the parents-in-law. The complaint was found to be wanting in particulars. The case was one where the husband already had died and the aged in-laws were proceeded against. A proper reading of the decision of such case would show that the same was one arrived at on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The decision in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & anr., (2010) 5 SCC 600 was referred to, to inform the parameters of exercise of quash jurisdiction and that this Court would not refrain merely on the ground that some questions of fact would require appreciation by the trial Court. Learned counsel relied on decisions of this Court reported in 2008(3) MLJ 776, 1989 Crl.LJ 669 and unreported judgments in Crl.R.C. No.507/2002 and Crl. O.P.No. 14940/2006, to inform that mere empty utterances would not attract offence u/s.506 IPC, when the concerned person did not perceive any threat. It may be mentioned that in the instant case not mere perception of threat alone is spoken of. The fact of carrying forward such threat into action also is informed.
10. Perusal of the order of the First Bench of this Court in W.P. No.21976/2009 would not support the contention that a finding of there having been no Katta Panchayat was arrived at. Therein, the particular respondents were bound by the statement of one of them that, 'there was no katta panchayat as alleged and there was no order of ex-communication against anybody whatsoever.' This court had made it clear that there would be no ex-communication either of the wife or three daughters of the deceased Hutchi Gowder or others or whoever supports the widow and the daughters of Hutchi Gowder. In fact the parties were required to take recourse either in civil or criminal proceedings. The order expresses an expectation that the legal process will be adopted by all parties concerned and informs that any complaint of ex-communication, would be looked into with all seriousness, by the authorities concerned. The order is in keeping with the earlier decision of the First Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 241, wherein, even while observing that it would be always open to have voluntary private organizations it was informed that such organizations could not exercise sovereign functions and that they cannot take the law into their own hands. This court, severely had deprecated the practice of conduct of 'katta panchayat' and issued stringent directions in such regard, observing:
'17. Although we are not making any comment on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the petition, we wish to make it clear that if these allegations are correct it is an extremely serious matter and if this trend is not curbed immediately it will lead to very adverse Law and Order situation in this State.' This court would follow the observations in the above decision.
11. Observing as above and for the reasons herein above stated, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
avr To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai