Dismissed

Palanichamy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Jun 2017CRL OP(MD)/22987/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings for preventing a Revenue Inspector from measuring disputed land. The court held that prior incriminating acts remained illegal despite subsequent quashing of civil proceedings and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.

Palanichamy Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON: 02.05.2017

¶4

DELIVERED ON: 07.06 .2017

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶7

Crl.O.P. (MD) No.22987 of 2015

¶8

1 Palanichamy

¶9

2 Paramasivam 3 Sivasamy 4 Rajendran 5 Muthandi

¶10

6 Manokaran 7 Pandi

¶11

8 Thavasi

¶12

9 Kasimayan

¶13

10 Pandi

¶14

11 Balamurugan

¶15

12 Kannuchamy

¶16

13 Muthu Thevar 14 Chinnasamy @ Mandeyan Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5,7 to 11, 14,15,16&18

¶17

vs.

¶18

1 The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector of Police Devathanapatti Police Station Theni District

¶19

(Cr. No.180 of 2009) 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶20

2 Ravi 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶21

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C. No.156 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam and quash the same.

¶22

For petitioners Mr. T.R. Subramanian For R1 Mr. K. Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C. No.156 of

¶25

¶26

2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam and quash the same.

¶27

2 On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, viz ., Ravi, the first respondent police registered a case in Cr. No.180 of 2009 and has filed charge sheet in C.C. No.156 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam, under Sections 147, 148, 353, 294(b) and 447, IPC against 22 accused, challenging which, 14 accused are before this Court.

¶28

3 Heard Mr. T.R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K. Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent/State.

¶29

4 The FIR in this case has been registered, as stated above, on the complaint given by Ravi, the second respondent herein, who was working as Revenue Inspector at Periyakulam at the relevant point of time.

¶30

5 It is the case of the prosecution that the land in question measuring 1 acre and 70 cents in Survey No.70 belonged to one Abbas Mandri, but, it was being cultivated by Ravi. Abbas Mandri sold the land to one Jeyapaul of J.C. Enterprises, aggrieved by which, Ravi was demanding compensation and was creating law and order problem. On coming to know of this, the Inspector of Police, Periyakulam, submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, apprehending breach of peace, based on which, Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the land in question was directed to be taken possession by the Government. On the instructions of the Tahsildar, when the Revenue Inspector went to the land for taking measurement on 02.06.2009 and 09.06.2009, he was prevented by accused 1 to 22 from taking measurement and hence, on the complaint of Ravi, the FIR came to be registered followed by the charge sheet, which is under challenge in this Criminal Original Petition.

¶31

6 The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that challenging the Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings, Jeyapaul filed Crl.O.P. (MD) No.4041 of 2009, which was allowed by this Court on 23.03.2010, pursuant to which, the order under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was revoked by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 11.06.2010 and therefore, the prosecution as against the petitioners is clearly an abuse of process of law.

¶32

7 This Court is unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, because, the prosecution of the accused is for the incidents which took place on 02.06.2009 and 09.06.2009, in which, a Government servant was illegally prevented by the accused from measuring the land by formation of an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons. The subsequent order of this Court, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot, in any manner, legalise the crimes which are said to have taken place on 02.06.2009 and 09.06.2009, for which, the petitioners

¶33

¶34

will have to face the music. In other words, the incidents wherein the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and prevented the Revenue Inspector from measuring the land, had taken place on 02.06.2009 and 09.06.2009, whereas, the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.4041 of 2009 is dated 23.03.2010.

¶35

8 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the prosecution.

¶36

Resultantly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.

¶37

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶38

/ True Copy /

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S.)

¶40

¶41

1 The Inspector of Police Devathanapatti Police Station Theni District

¶42

2 The Judicial Magistrate Court Periyakulam

¶43

3 The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

¶44

+1 CC TO MR.T.R.SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO.58774

¶45

cad

¶46

MAS/KP/SAR1:12.06.2017:3P-5C

¶47

order in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.22987 of 2015 07.06.2017

¶48

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

Palanichamy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanichamy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Chelladurai Vs the Secretary to Governmant

K.Ayanraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.Nagarajan, Vs the State Rep. by

M. Prasath Vs v. Chandrasekaran

A.Jiyavudeen Vs the Insepector of Police

Bhuvanendran, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police