Dismissed

C.Karunanidhi v. the State, Represented by

Madras HC22 Jun 2015CRL OP/26541/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal original petition filed by C. Karunanidhi seeking a direction to register an election-related complaint. It held the complaint was vague, lacked material particulars, and failed to disclose any cognizable offence justifying an FIR.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for lack of cognizable offence and failure to disclose material particulars.

C.Karunanidhi Vs the State, Represented… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on : 16.06.2015

¶3

Delivered on : 22.06.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

CRL.O.P.No.26541 of 2013

¶7

C.Karunanidhi ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Tindivanam Police Station,
Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

¶8

3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶9

4.S.Murali @ Raguraman ... Respondents [Impleaded as 4^th respondent vide order of this Court dated 16.06.2015 in MP.No.1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P.No.26541 of 2013]

¶10

Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 07.09.2013 and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham,

¶13

Public Prosecutor [for R1 to R3] : M/s.Ram and Ram [for R4] O R D E R

¶14

Seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 07.09.2013 and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and

¶16

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

¶17

the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶18

The sum and substance of the allegations in the complaint dated 07.09.2013 given by the petitioner is that S.Murali @ Raguraman, the 4^th respondent herein has manipulated several records and won the elections to the Thenkodipakkam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society that was held in the year 2013.

¶19

On a complete reading of the complaint, it does not disclose material particulars and the allegations are indeed very vague. That apart, the petitioner alleged several irregularities in the election of the 4^th respondent and filed WP.Nos.18055 and 20339 of 2013 in which, the CBCID was directed to conduct an enquiry and file a Final Report before this Court. After receiving the report, this Court disposed of the Writ Petitions on 19.09.2013, with a direction to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶20

It is admitted by the petitioner that he has preferred an election petition before the appropriate forum and is working out his remedies. Challenging the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by this Court in WP.Nos.18055 and 20339 of 2013, the petitioner field WA.No.2006 of 2013, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.09.2013.

¶21

Mr.Sudhakar, Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station has filed a counter, in which, in paragraph No.7 to 11, it is stated as follows :

¶22

"7. I submit that this Hon'ble Court has categorically held that the CBCID Police has investigated the matter and has reached a conclusion that there are no malpractice in the electionin which the 4^th respondent had been elected as a Director and the order of Single Judge is upheld.

¶23

I submit that the petitioner later filed a Civil Suit before the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram in Civil Suit [unnumbered] in SR.No.6137/2013 questioning the validity of the election, mentioning the same irregularities. The said civil suit was also dismissed under section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Again, the petitioner filed a revision against the above order before this Hon'ble Court in CRP[PD] No.3876/2013 and the same is pending.

¶24

I submit that the petitioner has suppressed the above facts in the Crl.OP.No.26541/2013 before this Hon'ble Court and he has not come with clean hands. Because of the rivalry between the 4^th respondent and the petitioner, the petitioner by filing vexatious petitions abuse the process of law and wasting the precious time of this Hon'ble Court.

¶25

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

¶26

I submit that during the course of the enquiry in CSR.188/2013, the 4^th respondent Murali @ Raguraman was enquired and he gave a statement denying the allegation made by the petitioner in his complaint and he further stated that he was duly elected according to law and rules and regulations. When the petitioner Thiru.Karunanidhi was enquired he gave a statement narrating the contentions of the complaint and agreed to settle the matter with the jurisdiction Police Station, in which the alleged occurance had taken place.

¶27

I submit that in view of the petitioner Thiru.Karunanidhi has chosen to deal the matter with the jurisdiction Police Station, the CSR.188/2013, registered based on the complaint of the petitioner was closed.“

¶28

In view of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the fact that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence for the police to register an FIR, this petition is dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

gya
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Tindivanam Police Station,
Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to M/s.Ram and Ram Advocate SR 30293
+ 1 cc to Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras SR 30612
ca(co)
prk1/7 CRL.O.P.No.26541 of 2013

¶30

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

C.Karunanidhi v. the State, Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Karunanidhi v. the State, Represented by

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

Mohammed Rafeeq Vs State Rep. by

Tony @ Dhoni, Aged 32 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Karthik Vs State Rep. by

P.Sounthirarajan Vs the Dy Superintendent of

C.H.Yuvakrishna Vs the Asst.Commissioner of

Chellaiah Vs the State through