The petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in HRC No.7/2005 pending on the file of the Human Rights Court cum The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.
2.The fact of the case are as follows:
The petitioner herein is working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Athirampattinam Police Station. On 29.04.2004, the second accused one Kamamuttai @ Shahul Hammed, who is the relative of the respondent/complainant preferred a written complaint to the petitioner against the respondent herein for the alleged offences under
Sections 323,379 and
506(i) I.P.C., which was registered a case in crime No.142/2004 by the present petitioner. On completing the investigation, the petitioner found evidences against the respondent, filed a charge sheet against him before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and the same is now pending before the said Court.
3.Prior to this case, three more cases were already been registered by the previous officers and in all those cases, the respective investigating officers have laid charge sheets against the respondent and the same are also pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, where the present case is pending.
4.Since the petitioner had reasons to recommend for opening and maintaining the history sheet against the respondent as required under the police standing orders, the petitioner recommended him to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Pattukottai seeking necessary orders, who issued orders on 14.05.2004 ordering for opening a history sheet against the respondent and subsequently, a history sheet was opened and the same is maintained.
5.The respondent now alleged that registering the case in crime No.142 of 2004 and opening a history sheet amounts to defamation punishable under
Section 500 I.P.C and the same is a human rights violation and hence, the respondent filed a complaint before the Human Rights Court and the same was taken cognizance and now pending for trial in HRC No.7/2005 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.
6.I have Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the entire materials.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein, in the capacity of Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case against the respondent/complainant and further he recommended and sponsored his name to be included in the rowdy list. He further submitted that the inclusion of his name in the rowdy list is only by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, not by the present petitioner.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner involved in four cases among which some of the cases are against the human body and some of the provisions are under the offence affecting the public tranquility and hence the petitioner herein informed his superiors regarding the attitude and character of the respondent herein, which cannot, at no stretch of imagination, attract any offence under
Section 500 I.P.C.
9.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present complaint has been filed after a lapse of 4 months before the concerned Court and the same is now committed to the trial Court. He further submitted that while the complainant/respondent herein moved a writ petition before this Court for removing his name in the rowdy list, he has not alleged regarding the mala-fide intention against the petitioner herein and hence he prayed for the allowing of the criminal original petition and quash the criminal proceedings in H.R.C.No.7/2005 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.
10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that since because the attitude of the petitioner herein and the letter forwarded by the petitioner to the Superior Officers, his name has been included in the rowdy list and the same was known to the public and hence his character has been tarnished in the minds of the public. He further submitted that the petitioner herein exceed his limits and with a mala-fide intention, registered various cases against the complainant herein.
11.I have considered the rival submissions made by either parties.
12.As stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the entire allegation against the petitioner and the grievances of the complainant against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the cause for inclusion of the name of the complainant in the rowdy list.
13.The perusal of records would show that even prior to the assumption of charge as Sub-Inspector of Police to the concerned police station, in the year 2000 - 2002, three cases were already been registered against the complainant/respondent herein. The only case registered against the respondent by the present petitioner is in crime No.142/2004 under
Sections 323,379 and
50-6(i) I.P.C.
14.Further, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondent is that the case, which is registered against the respondent herein is ended either in acquittal or referred as Mistake of Fact and hence, it shows the mala- fide intention of the petitioner herein.
15.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the decisions by the competent trial Court either in acquitting the accused or in referring the matter as 'Mistake of Fact' by the concerned officer will not erase the character of the respondent/complainant and which cannot be a ground to assail the registration of the case by the petitioner or other officials concerned.
16.This Court is also of the view that the recommendations of the present petitioner herein to the Superior Officers is only in the official capacity and the same has not been known to other persons except the petitioner and the superior officers concerned and the decision is also taken by the Superior Officers, not by the present petitioner.
17.Even though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that some cases are ended in acquittal and some cases are referred as Mistake of Fact, he admits that none of the judgment passed in favour of the complainant herein and no Court observed that the case has been registered against the complainant with some mala-fide intention by the petitioner herein.
18.Further, the entire perusal of the complaint does not disclose any offence under
Sections 499 and punishable under
Section 500 I.P.C. But, the only allegation by the complainant/respondent against the petitioner is that he sponsored the name of the respondent to the superior officers for inclusion of his name in the rowdy list, will not attract the offence under
Section 500 I.P.C.
19.The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant is that the complaints lodged by the relative of the complainant herein are purely on a dispute between the complainant and his relatives and hence he cannot be termed as 'Rowdy' and for the reason, the recommendation of the present petitioner is only with a mala-fide intention.
20.But, the perusal of the F.I.Rs. produced by either party would disclose even though the complaint lodged by a particular individual and the same discloses the offences which are against the human body, public tranquility and properties. So it is necessary to an officer, who is vested with the power to maintain the law and order problem and also to control the crime rate, forward the name of the accused to the superior authorities. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that such action cannot be questioned by way of filing a complaint against the officers concerned. If this type of attitude is encouraged, it will affect the morale of the officers concerned, those who are vested with the said power.
21.In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the present complaint against the petitioner herein is liable to be quashed.
22.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the complaint in H.R.C.No.7/2005 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur is hereby quashed.
Arul To:
The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.