Dismissed

D.Muralidharan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Jul 2013CRL RC/615/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition sought to quash an order dismissing an application to obtain a tower report for the investigating officer. The High Court afirmd the lower court's order by upholding the maintenance of the prosecution case based on hospital intimations and witness statements, refusing to interfere without finding discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed and the impugned order of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate was confirmed.

D.Muralidharan Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09/ 07 /2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.615 of 2012

¶6

D.Muralidharan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Petitioner/Accused -1
Vs.
1.Inspector of Police,
V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station,
Chennai (Crime No.492 of 2010) ..Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
2. Vodafone South Limited,
Circle Head Office, Tower I,
9th Floor,
TVH Beliciaa Towers,
Block 94 MRC Nagar,
Chennai - 600 028. ... Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C., as against the order of dismissal made in Crl.M.P.No.627
of 2011 in C.C.No.2812 of 2010, dated 16.02.2012, by the X
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
for M/s.M.Kalyani
For Respondent : Mr.C.Balasubramaniam
Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1

¶7

PRAYER : Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., as against the order of dismissal made in Crl.M.P.No.627 of 2011 in C.C.No.2812 of 2010, dated 16.02.2012, by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶8

¶9

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

¶10

One Karthick, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint before the first respondent herein and the same has been

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

registered in Crime No.492 of 2010 as against the petitioner and his father Duraisamy for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(i) IPC stating that the petitioner and his father used abusive words and assaulted him with a hammer on 24.04.2010 at about 4 p.m. and as a result, he had sustained injuries. Hence, the prosecution case has been levelled against the accused.

¶13

Subsequently, the Inspectress of Police had conducted an enquiry and submitted the charge sheet before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The said case was numbered as C.C.No.2812 of 2010. While the case was pending, the petitioner herein has filed Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2011 and the same is pending. While so, the petitioner in order to prove his case filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.627 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2011 in C.C.No.2812 of 2010, on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, to call for the tower report of the mobile number of the investigation officer i.e., 9962655719 of Smt.Ammu, Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station who is the investigation officer of the above case for the period from 20.04.2010 to 30.04.2010.

¶14

The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments on this petition and perused the petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate observed that the petitioner herein and his father had filed two petitions in M.P.Nos.552 of 2011 and 553 of 2011 under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and that the petitions had been filed to call for the tower report from the aircel, vodafone, south limited, bharati airtel limited etc. However, the learned Magistrate on observing the contentions of the prosecution that the report requested by the petitioner from the various Departments is not maintainable as per law and that he is not entitled to disprove the case, held that the petition is not maintainable as per the facts of the case and on observing that the M.P.Nos.552 and 553 of 2011 are pending, opined that the said report cannot be called for as requested by the petitioner and hence, dismissed the petition.

¶15

Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the above revision has been filed.

¶16

The Inspectress of Police, has filed a counter statement and resisted the petition after narrating the facts of the case.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defacto complainant viz., Karthick lodged a complaint before the first respondent herein, who registered a case in Crime No.492 of 2010 as against this petitioner and his father Duraisamy under Sections 294(b), 324, 341 and 506(ii) IPC stating that the petitioner and his father used abusive words against the defacto complainant on 24.04.2010 at about 4 p.m. Further, both of them

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

assaulted him with a hammer and caused injury. The learned counsel further contended that after investigation a charge sheet has been filed before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the said case taken on file as C.C.No.2812 of 2010 under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC which was altered subsequently to an offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 326, 506 (ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner and his father has filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2011 and the same is pending. While so, the petitioner in order to prove his case has filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.627 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2011 in C.C.No.2812 of 2010 under Section 91 Cr.P.C, to call for the tower report of the mobile number of the investigation officer, i.e. 9962655719 of Smt.Ammu, Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station who is the investigation officer of the above said case for the period from 20.04.2010 to 30.04.2010. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is a B.E. and M.B.A. graduate and highly qualified person and his father is working as a Divisional Engineer in B.S.N.L.

¶20

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that one Sumathi lodged a false complaint against the revision petitioner on 28.06.2004 as if the petitioner received some amount from her and failed to repay it. But after investigation, the K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai closed the same since there was no prima facie case against him. Subsequently, the said Sumathi had levelled another complaint with the same set of allegation against the revision petitioner before the first respondent herein and the same was also closed after a thorough investigation. The learned counsel further contended that the said Sumathi lodged another complaint before the All Women Police Station, Villivakkam, against the revision petitioner herein. In that case, he was arrested and released on bail. Subsequently, charge sheet has been filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in C.C.No.12426 of 2005. When the petitioner sought some related documents from the respondent herein which will enable him to defend the prosecution case effectively, the same was not provided. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition in Crl.O.P.No.26915 of 2007 for proper direction. This Court had directed the concerned police to furnish the same, but the concerned police had failed to comply with the same. Hence, the father of the petitioner had made an application under Right to Information Act on 21.09.2007, but in spite of it, he was unable to receive the said documents. The aggrieved person made an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act. At this stage, as the petitioner's father had received threatening phone calls on his phone, he was constrained to file a complaint before the respondent herein. Thereafter, the first respondent herein instigated one Karthick as defacto complainant and received a complaint from him and the same was registered in Crime No.492 of 2010, which has been numbered as C.C.No.2812 of 2010 after filing a charge sheet which

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

is pending now. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent Police herein and another police station have continuously tortured this petitioner and his father after registering false cases against them. The aggrieved persons have sent representation to the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Hon'ble Chief Minister, the Human Rights Commission and other high officials concerned. The learned counsel vehemently pointed out that as per the allegation of the defacto complainant, the occurrence took place on 24.04.2010 at about 08.00p.m., and at that point of time, the investigation officer, viz., A.Ammu was not available at the said police station but the F.I.R. has been registered by her. This is a vital point in the prosecution case and therefore, in order to prove the presence of A.Ammu, the investigation officer, the petitioner requested the second respondent to provide tower (cellphone) report of the various network pertaining to calls made by the investigation officer, as only then it can be made out whether the prosecution had a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner and his father. Actually the alleged occurrence had never taken place but on the strength of false complaint, the prosecution has filed a false complaint against them and caused them harassment.

¶23

Mr.C.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the Sub Inspectress, viz., Tmt.A.Ammu had received an intimation from the Sri Devi Hospital, Anna Nagar on 24.10.2010 stating that the defacto complainant is undergoing treatment due to injuries sustained by him. Immediately, the Sub Inspectress had rushed to the hospital and received complaint from the said Karthick and proceeded with the prosecution case against the accused. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and his father had assaulted the defacto complainant and hence, a prima facie case had been made out. In order to prove the same, wound certificate, eyewitness and hospital records are available. Based on the said complaint, a criminal case in Crime No.492 of 2010 has been registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC by Mrs.Ammu, the Sub Inspectress of Police and the matter was taken up for investigation. The Investigation Officer visited the scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch and the observation mahazar and seized two hammers in the presence of two witnesses. Besides 8 witnesses have also been examined. The Investigation Officer arrested the petitioner and his father and remanded them into judicial custody. The doctor Thangaraju also had given a statement regarding medical treatment administered to the defacto complainant and besides this, one Mannar who was the eyewitness had also been examined. After getting the medical opinion from the doctor and also obtaining legal opinion from the learned Assistant Prosecutor, the case has been proceeded with. Now, the case is ready for trial. Under the circumstances, this petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2011 and the same is pending for arguments. The Crl.M.P.No.627 of 2011 to call for the tower report of the mobile number of the investigation officer from Aircel, Vodafone South Limited, Bharathi

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

Airtel Limited etc., was dismissed on 16.02.2012 on the ground that the report requested by the petitioner from the various departments is not maintainable as per law and he is not at all entitled to disprove this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner also has filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.5002 of 2012 before this court to quash the entire criminal proceedings and the same was dismissed on 06.06.2012 on the ground that the petitioner has the liberty to file the revision against the orders. Now, this accused filed this revision to set-aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.627 of 2011 in C.C.No.2812 of 2010. The petitioner's request for call details is not at all related to this case. Further, the accused is facing another 2 criminal cases. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above revision.

¶26

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said prosecution case. This Court's further view is that only after the intimation given by the Sri Devi Hospital to the concerned police station, the criminal case has been registered, after seeing the victims/injured person at the hospital. Statements were received from the victim and subsequently, the prosecution case has been proceeded with. Now, this case is pending for about three years for trial. This court's further view is that the duty of the prosecution is to prove the criminal case beyond reasonable doubt and without lacuna. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate. This Court directs the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate to dispose the case in C.C.No.2812 of 2010 on topmost priority basis without being influenced by this Court's discussion.

¶27

In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.627 of 2011 in C.C.No.2812 of 2010, on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 16.02.2012, is confirmed.

¶28

Sd/Asst.Registrar /True Copy/

¶29

Sub Asst.Registrar

¶30

r n s

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

¶33

The 1.Inspector of Police, V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai.

¶34

The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.M.Kalyani, Advocate Sr 34430

¶36

AD(CO)
km/22.10.
Crl.R.C.No.615 of 2012

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

D.Muralidharan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Muralidharan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager, Oriental Ins. Vs Periyaswamy,Govindan Kottai

Tnstc.Ltd.,Rpe.by Mg.Director, Vs M.Subrmaaniyan

The Branch Manager Vs Mangammal

M/S.National Insurance Company Vs Rajan,S/O.Bhaskaran Nair

The Managing Director Vs Sivaraj

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs M. Kalyanasundaram