BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON :24.08.2018
PRONOUNCED ON :31.08.2018
Dated: 31.08.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2018
M.Deivam …
Petitioner
Vs
1.The State rep. By,
Inspector of Police,
CBCID,
Theni District.
(Crime No.03/2015)
2.Pandi
3.Krishnammal
4.Palaniammal
5.Subburaj
6.Bhuvaneswari
7.Pandi
8.Perumalsamy
9.Kottaisamy
10.Ramasamy
11.Selvaraj
12.Sekar … Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C,
praying, to callf or the records pertaining to the order in Crl.M.P.No.5153
of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni District, Theni
dated 21.11.2017 in C.C.No.273 of 2016, dated 12.07.2016 on the file of the
respondent police and set aside the same.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vanchinathan
^For R1 : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
:ORDER
The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in the case
originally registered under Crime No.200 of 2012 on the file of the
Mayiladumparai Police Station on 15.10.2005. According to the complaint, the
defacto complainant Deivam married Bhuvaneswari daughter of Subburaj was ill-
treated by his wife and his family members. As a result, he has preferred a
divorce petition before the Sub Court, Theni. Counselling between them took
place at Bangalore but one Krishnasamy, uncle of Bhuvaneswari, an Army man
threatened him. Hence, he gave a complaint against the said Krishnasamy on
23.12.2011, before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.
2.In this complaint, he has further alleged that on 21.04.2012 and
06.05.2012, one T.K.R.Ganesan, paternal junior uncle of Bhuvaneswari arrived
with 20 henchmen and attacked him brutally. On 22.04.2012 one Pandi came to
his house with aruval and abused him with filthy language and tried to attack
him. When he went to Mayiladumparai Police Station to give complaint about
Pandi, Pandi brother Ramasamy and junior paternal uncle of Bhuvaneswari
Kottaisamy came to the police station and gave bribe to Selvaraj, Sub
Inspector of Police and Sekar writer to register false complaint against this
revision petitioner and his family members. His dress was removed. Hands
and legs were chained and he was brutally attacked by the police. His
brother Arivalagan was threatened over phone.
3.Based on his complaint against Ramasamy, Palanisamy, Pandi and
Krishnammal and others, case was registered and taken up for investigation
by one Saravanan, Sub Inspector of Police, Mayiladumparai. Later, he filed
a closure report as mistake of fact on 10.01.2013. Aggrieved by that, the
revision petitioner filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3121 of 2015 before this Court for
change of investigation. This Court, allowed this petition on 10.07.2015 and
thereafter investigation was transferred to CBCID. The complaint was re-
registered under Crime No.2 of 2015 on the file of CBCID. After completion
of the investigation, CBCID has filed a final report against Pandi for the
offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and against Krishnammal for the
offence under Section 294(b) and against Palanisamy for the offence under
Section 294(b) IPC. The trial Court has taken the final report along with
documents and after framing charge, proceeded to conduct the trial.
4.Deivam, the revision petitioner herein was examined as P.W.1,
Muthaiah, father of P.W.1 examined as P.W.2 and Manivel, an independent
witness for the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer examined
as P.W.3.
5.At this juncture, the revision petitioner has filed an application
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C to add the respondents 5 to 12 as accused. The
trial Court after perusing the records including the Section 161 statement of
the witnesses, FIR and the deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.4 found that there is
no incriminating materials to add the respondents 5 to 12 as accused. Since
there is no prima facie material to prosecute them, application under Section
319 Cr.P.C was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision
petition is filed on the ground that the final report of CBCID deleting the
respondents 5 to 12 without notice to him is bad in law. The police
officials who are shown as accused in the F.I.R have abused their position
and misused their power and foisted a false case against him and the
respondents 5 to 10 are the relatives of his wife intimidated him. The
Pandi, family who are shown as accused, are the henchmen of Subburaj and
others. Hence, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and
the respondents 5 to 12 have to be arrayed as accused and tried along with
the respondent 2 to 4.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Perused the
records.
7.The complaint and the deposition of P.W.1 centres around an event
alleged to have been taken place on 22.04.2012. On that day, specific
allegation is made in the complaint that Pandi who is arrayed as first
accused came with aruval and threatened the revision petitioner and his
father. Further, he threatened the revision petitioner that he will not
leave him alive. The investigation reveals that Pandi is the owner of the
neighboring house and there is a dispute between Deivam family and Pandi
family regarding the construction. The alleged threat mentioned in the
complaint dated 22.04.2012 is nothing to do with Subburaj or family members
of Bhuvaneswari. In fact, a complaint has been lodged against this revision
petitioner before the same police station by Ramasamy and that complaint has
been registered in Crime No.85 of 2012. The revision petitioner was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody for alleged offences under Sections 147,
294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC.
8.A perusal of the complaint, final report, statement of witnesses,
more particularly, the deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.3 does not make out a case
against the respondents 5 to 12. The allegation of the revision petitioner
that on 22.04.2012, he was attacked and his hand and legs were chained has
been taken into consideration during the investigation. Since some
allegations have been against Selvaraj, Sub Inspector of Police, the
Investigating Officer has recommended to take departmental action against
him.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted
that departmental proceedings cannot be equated with criminal prosecution,
when there is a prima facie material to show that there is abuse of power,
recommending departmental action is not sufficient.
10.This Court finds no force in the above submission made by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner for the simple reason that
Selvaraj, Sub Inspector of Police during the relevant point of time, ie on
22.04.2012, has arrested the revision petitioner and remanded him to judicial
custody, based on the complaint given by one Ramasamy. The lapse on his part
pointed out during the investigation is non-registering the complaint given
by the revision petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent police, it is pointed out that when the revision petitioner was
arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand, he did not
raise any allegation against the police regarding the ill-treatment. While
so, as an after thought, he has made certain allegation against the police
and his falsehood has been established during the investigation done by the
CBCID Police.
11.In such circumstances, neither Subburaj and his relatives nor the
police officials need to be arrayed as accused and tried in this case. This
Court after appraising the materials and for the reasons stated above, has no
hesitation to hold that the revision petition is devoid of merits.
12.Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID,
Theni District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Theni District.
.
