SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

K.Muruganandam-vs-The District Magistrate And on 22 August, 2011

Madras High Court K.Muruganandam-vs-The District Magistrate And on 22 August, 2011

DATED: 22.08.2011

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

W.P.No.7646 of 2011 and

M.P.No.1 of 2011

K.Muruganandam … Petitioner.

vs.

1. The District Magistrate and

District Collector, Namakkal Dist.

2. Mrs.Dhamayandhi … Respondents.

Prayer: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the record pertaining to the order of the respondent in R.O.C.No.42833/2010/MI dated 24.12.2010 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Johnson

For R1 : Court

For R2 : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

*****

O R D E R

By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. The petitioner and the second respondent are the practicing Advocates and the petitioner married the second respondent during 2001. The second respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste. It seems that the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent broke down and the second respondent made a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station alleging offences under Sections 498A, 506(ii) and 494 IPC r/w Sections 109 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act and the same was registered in Crime No.966 of 2002. After investigation a charge sheet was also filed before the Principal District and Sessions Court, designated Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. In the meanwhile, the second respondent made allegations against the Public Prosecutor. She wanted the Public Prosecutor of her choice, as provided under Rule 4(5) of SC/ST (P&A) Rules, 1995 and her choice was one Mr.B.Mohan of Bhavani.

4. She also filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.22387 of 2010, seeking for a direction to the first respondent to appoint an Advocate, as the Special Public Prosecutor, as desired by the victim of atrocity, for conducting her case before the Principal Sessions Judge.

5. This Court, vide order dated 28.10.2010, passed an order in Crl.O.P.No.22387 of 2010, directing the first respondent to engage an Advocate as desired by the victim to conduct the case pending before the learned Principal and District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C.No.196 of 2003. The para-8 of the said order is extracted here under: "8. As per the rule, the District Magistrate is that competent authority to engage an Advocate for conducting the cases in Special Courts on payment of fee. Therefore, it is just and appropriate to direct the District Magistrate Viz., the Collector, Namakkal District to appoint an advocate as desired by the victim for conducting the case pending before the Principal and District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal."

6. In pursuance of the above order, the first respondent passed an impuged order dated 24.12.2010 appointing Thiru B.Mohan as Special Public Prosecutor in the case in S.C.No.196 of 2003 of Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 24.12.2010 appointing Mr.B.Mohan as the Special Public Prosecutor.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent could not have appointed Thiru B.Mohan as the Special Public Prosecutor as desired by the second respondent. Beside stating so, learned counsel for the petitioner has not given any valid reason for appointing Thiru B.Mohan as the Special Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has, in my considered view, no substance.

9. Under Para-5 of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.22387 of 2011, this Court cited the Rule 4(5) of SC/ST (P&A) Rules, 1995, which is extracted here under: "4(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1) the District Magistrate or by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may, if deem necessary or if so desired by the victims of atrocity engage an eminent Senior Advocate for conducting cases in the Special Courts on such payment of fee as he may consider appropriate." The statutory rules give right to the victim of atrocities for choosing a Public Prosecutor of their own choice.

10. This Court passed an order in Crl.O.P.No.22387 of 2010 dated 28.10.2010 by directing the first respondent to appoint an Advocate as desired by the victim, viz., the second respondent herein, based on which, impugned order was also passed by the first respondent on 24.12.2010. Therefore, the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.22387 of 2010 attained finality. Hence, the order of the first respondent could not be faulted with, as the same is a consequential order.

11. Consequently, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

12. It is seen from the records that this Court, vide order dated 25.03.2011, passed an interim order to the effect that the trial in S.C.No.196 of 2003 shall not proceed further. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court in an earlier occasion passed an order dated 23.03.2010 in Crl.O.P.No.8562 of 2007, by directing the trial Court to dispose of the case in S.C.No.196 of 2003 within a period of six months. In view of the stay granted by this Court on 25.03.2011 in this writ petition, the case did not proceed further.

13. However, both the counsel have now requested this Court to direct the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal to dispose of the case in S.C.No.196 of 2003 within a stipulated period.

14. In these circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition, a direction is issued to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal to dispose of the case in S.C.No.196 of 2003 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.08.2011

Index : Yes

Internet : Yes

ar

Note: Issue order copy on 24.08.2011.

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN,J.,

ar

To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge,

Namakkal

2. The District Magistrate and

District Collector, Namakkal Dist.

W.P.No.7646 of 2011

22.08.2011

Main – Page

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation