IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.06.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN CRL.O.P.No.20811 of 2011
1. Ramesh
2. Selvam
3. Selvaraj
4. Viswanathan
5. R.C.Shanmugam
6. Balasubramani
7. M.Basha
8. Anbu @ Anbazhagan .. Petitioners Vs.
State by Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal, Namakkal District.
(Cr.No.1027 of 2011) .. Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for order and decree as follows:-
a) dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners in S.T.C.No.367 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate - I, Namakkal, Namakkal District pending trial in S.T.C.No.367 of 2011.
b) grant stay of all further proceedings in S.T.C.No.367 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, Namakkal District pending disposal of the above quash petition.
c) Call for the entire records concerned in S.T.C No.367 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal, Namakkal District and quash the same.
For the petitioners : Mr.C.Prakasam For the respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER This criminal original petition is preferred by the petitioners/accused A1 to A8 against the final report pending in S.T.C.No.367 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal and quash the same.
2. Brief case of the petitioners/accused:
The prosecution case is that the respondent police entered into the office called as muthamizh youth Welfare Sangam on 12.7.2011 and registered a false case against the petitioners/accused, even though the petitioners playing the rummy without any money. Even in the charge sheet the respondent police has not stated anything about the recovery of money from the petitioners.
3. Heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the respondent police frequently wantonly threatening the petitioners to close down the said sangam on political motivation, in this connection the said sangam approached this Hon’ble Court and obtained orders infavour of them.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that this Court passed orders in favour of the sangam , but the respondent police due to political motive came and inspected the sangam and found that there is no irregularities committed in the sangam, even at the time of inspection, the sangam incharge produced this Court order, but inspite of it, the respondent police openly stated that the said sangam should meet out the political leaders demand, but the said sangam management refused to meet out the political leaders demand hence the respondent police registered a false FIR as if the members of the said sangam playing Mangathaa.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the respondent police not seized any money from the petitioners, but the respondent police allegedly seized tokens, but the said tokens issued for the purpose for purchase of tea, coffee and tiffen and parking but the respondent police wantonly stated that tokens were seized for use of playing rummy is illegal and arbitrary.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that they played rummy with money as alleged by police, but they played rummy without any money, that too within the premises of friends recreation sangam which is registered under the societies Registration Act and this Court also was pleased to directed the respondent police not to interfere with day to day affairs of the sangam but now the respondent police have wantonly entered into the sangam premises that too, without obtaining any search warrant from the concern judicial magistrate and seized the play cards.
8. It is settled by this court and the Hon’ble Apex Court that playing rummy is not offence. Unfortunately, the respondent/complainant failed to follow the judgments and acted in a high handed manner taking law into their own hands.
9. The contentions of the petitioner /accused coupled with the judgments placed dislodges the case of the respondent/complainant.
10. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioners/accused in S.T.C.No.367 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal is hereby quashed.
20.06.2017 vs Note:Issue order copy on 19.03.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs CRL.O.P.No.20811 of 2011 20.06.2017