THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Crl.O.P.No.16337 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
1. N.Karthick
2. Narayanasamy … Petitioners Vs.
1. State by Inspector of Police, Perumanallur Police Station, Tiruppur District.
2. K.Palanisamy … Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.93 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.Muthukumar (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side) No Appearance (for R2)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Original Petition is preferred by the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 for quashing the final report filed in C.C.No.93 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur.
2. Brief case of the petitioners/accused is that:
The facts of the case is that a civil suit in O.S.No.128 of 2008 was pending before the learned District Munsif, Thiruppur between the petitioners/accused and defacto-complainant. On 21.11.2011, a police constable approached the petitioners/accused and asked them to come to the police station regarding civil dispute. The petitioners/accused met the Inspector of police and informed him that the case was pending in O.S.No.128 of 2008 regarding a path way and the case was posted on 23.11.2011. The Inspector Manimozhi instead of enquiring them, ordered the police constable to put them in lock up saying that he does not require the explanation. Immediately a police constable pushed the petitioners inside the lock up and closed the door. Thereafter a brutal violence perpetrated by the police inspector inside the lock up. The said inspector entered into the lock up and gave a blow on 2nd petitioner’s back side of his neck without considering his age. Immediately the 1st petitioner’s http://www.judis.fnaic.tinher Narayansamy lost consciousness and started falling down and tried to prevent his head from dashing the wall, the Inspector caught hold of hair and gave a death blow in the eye. Unable to bear the pain the 1st petitioner, in order to save his father begged the inspector not to attack them and not to foist any false case. Instead of releasing the petitioners, the inspector of police started to hit the 2nd petitioner, who was in semi conscious state, in a barbaric manner and the 1st petitioner charged with his boots on stomach. The other members, who were with the petitioners, were not spared and they too had their share of the Inspectors brutal attack. The Inspector asked the 2nd respondents/defacto complainant in O.S.No.128 of 2008 who were present in the police station to immediately construct a road in the suit property and promised to get statement favouring the 2nd respondent from the 1st petitioner. As the petitioner objected for the same, the 1st respondent / Inspector again assaulted and scolded using unparliamentary words.
3. The petitioners preferred complaint before the higher authorities and also filed direction petition before this Hon’ble Court in Crl.O.P.No.6040 of 2012 for initiating necessary action against the erring police officials, register the complaint and investigate a case on the basis of complaint dated 23.11.2011.
4. This Court through its order dated 19.04.2012, directed the petitioner to forward the copy of the complaint to the state human rights commission to hold enquiry on the allegations and then proceed in accordance with law.
5. The 1st respondent registered the FIR against the petitioners/accused on the false complaint given by the 2nd respondent.
The 1st respondent without conducting any enquiry wantonly shown the petitioners/accused as absconding accused and filed the final report before the concern judicial magistrate on 12.01.2012. The learned Magistrate No.II, Thiruppur without applying his judicial mind take the case on file in C.C.No.93 of 2012 under Sections 294(b), 341, 506(ii) of IPC and issued warrant instead of issuing summons to the petitioners/accused. Hence this quash petition is filed to quash the final report under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.93 of 2012 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur in Crime No.2069 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent against the petitioners/1st and 2nd accused is an abuse of process of law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the charges under Section 294(b) as in the charge sheet is totally false since the 1st petitioner was in fasting to Sabari Malai and 2nd petitioner was a patient who could not even walk properly, and the charge under section 341 is also false as there was no restrainment since the defacto complainant/2nd respondent had went to the police station and moreover it is unbelievable that the petitioner’s had threatened in front of the police station and charge under section 506(ii) is also false since the statements of all the witness are parrot like statements and all the occurrence happened in front of the Police Station.
8. The learned Government Advocate contended that the petitioners/accused should face the trial and prove the false charges made against them. Inspite of service of summons, nobody appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
9. I heard Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the 1st respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. No representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
10. It is seen from the records that, the petitioners/accused were admitted in the Government Hospital, casualty ward on 22.11.2011 at about 11.30AM and the accident registers issued by the casualty medical officer attached to the Government Hospital, Thiruppur was produced before this Court. This Court through its order dated 19.4.2012 directed the state human rights commission to hold enquiry on the complaint made by the petitioners dated 22.11.2011.
11. Inspite of all the abovesaid, the 1st respondent filed the final report against the petitioners/accused on the complaint made by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and registered the FIR and also shown the petitioners/accused as absconding accused.
12. The conduct of the 1st respondent, Manimozhi, Inspector of Police is highly condemnable and shown biased and unfair attitude against the petitioners/accused. Atleast, the Inspector of Police should have received the complaint of the petitioners/accused and proceeded in accordance with law, which normally all the police officers universally doing in civil proceedings but this was also absent in this case.
13. As a matter of fact, contempt proceedings should be initiated against the said Manimozhi, the 1st respondent / Inspector of Police for assaulting the petitioners/accused in the guise of enquiry which was supported by the accident registers issued by the Government Medical College. But it is for the petitioners/accused to decide their course of action. Anyway by way of this order, I am directing the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Manimozhi, Inspector of Police.
14. In the case on hand, hatred and false statements have been falsely foisted by the Inspector of Police against the petitioners/accused and filed the final report without any material particulars except verbal allegations. For this, a Court of law cannot be a party to the concocted final report as done by the Inspector of Police in this case.
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in various decisions cautioned the Judicial Magistrates to be careful in taking cognizance against the final report showing the accused as absconding. It is the duty of the Judicial Magistrate to verify the CD particulars and general diary extracts regarding the enquiry conducted with the family members, relations of the petitioners/accused or the steps taken by the investigation http://www.judis.onifc.finicer with regard to the search of the accused, summons issued any for appearance or the details carried regarding the verification of their livelihood from the nearby residents. The learned Judicial Magistrates should seek the abovesaid records before taking cognizance against the absconding accused shown in the final report.
16. If the Investigation Officer have produced all the factors aforesaid regarding the search of the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate in their first instance issue summons to the accused shown in the final report for appearance. Inspite of summons, if the accused failed to appear then the judicial act warranted to issue non bailable warrant or bailable warrant as per the seriousness of the case. To my mind, on reading the various decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, would be appropriate procedure.
17. In this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have issued summons on verifying the investigations conducted by the investigating officer regarding the abscondence of the petitioners/accused and on the next stage, warrant would be appropriate. Both the acts have not done accordance with law.
18. Finally, the allegations averred by the 2nd respondent may be a http://www.judis.qnicu.ien stion of fact but the fact remains that normal human behavior and presumption as per law would conclude that the complaint itself a concocted document.
19. Therefore, I have no hesitation in allowing the petition filed by the petitioner/accused. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the final report filed in C.C.No.93 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruppur is hereby quashed.
20. This Court direct the registry to forward the order of this Court to the Director General of Police to initiate appropriate action against the Manimozhi, Inspector of Police. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.06.2017 vs Note: Issue order copy on 04.03.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs Crl.O.P.No.16337 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 27.06.2017