Allowed

P.Thangavel, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Jun 2017CRL OP(MD)/4660/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a criminal petition to quash prosecution against the petitioner's accused under sections of IPC and Mines Act. The court held that since the Minister's accomplice's case was already quashed based on flawed witness statements involving the petitioner, the petitioner's prosecution must similarly be quashed, despite unfiled SLP papers.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in P.R.C.No.11 of 2013 against the petitioner are quashed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

P.Thangavel, Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.06.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.4660 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.(MD).No.3310 of 2017

¶7

P.Thangavel

¶8

: Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.146 of 2012) : Respondent/Complainant

¶11

P.Paranjothi S/o.Village Administrative Officer, Ayyampalayam Village, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul District. : Respondent/Defacto-Complainant

¶12

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, so far against the petitioner concerned.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam for M/s.R.Pandi Maharaja For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajarathinam State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶14

for R1

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

On the complaint lodged by the Village Administrative Officer, Iyyampalayam, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.146 of 2012 on 01.06.2012 for the offence under Sections 379 and 420 IPC and Section 4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act, 1952 against one Muralidharan and others. After completing the investigation, the respondent police filed the final report in P.R.C.No.11 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate,

¶17

¶18

Nilakottai under Section 120(b) r/w 447, 379, 420, 432 and 304 IPC and Section 3(1) and 4 of TNPPDL Act and Sections 3(a), 4(a) and (b) r/w 6 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 r/w 109, 114 and 511 IPC against Muralidharan and 7 others, including one I.Periyasamy/A2, a former Minister in the D.M.K. Government and P.Thangavel/A3, P.A. of A2.

¶19

The crux of the allegation in the charge sheet is that all the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy sometime in the year 2007-2010 for illegal quarrying of granite in Government land in Survey No.1140 of Iyyampalayam Village. It is alleged that during the said period, I.Periyasamy/A2 was a sitting Minister and P.Thangavel/A3 was his P.A.. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, all the accused illegally quarryied granite in the said Government land and caused loss of Rs.65,00,000/- to the exchequer.

¶20

Challenging the proceedings in P.R.C.No.11 of 2013, I.Periyasamy/A2 filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6206 of 2013 for quashing the same. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6206 of 2013 was heard by a learned Single Judge and it was allowed on 20.08.2015. In such circumstances, Thangavel/A3 is before this Court for quashing the prosecution against him in P.R.C.No.11 of 2013 on the ground that his case is identical to that of the I.Periyasamy/A2 and therefore, the prosecution against him should be quashed.

¶21

Heard Mr.C.M.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Rajarathinam, State Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.

¶22

Mr.R.Rajarathinam, State Public Prosecutor submitted that as against the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6206 of 2013, dated 20.08.2015, the Government is contemplating of filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the papers are pending with the Government. Therefore, he submitted that this Court should not quash the proceedings as against Thangavel/A3.

¶23

In the considered opinion of this Court, the case against I.Periyasamy/A2 was quashed in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6206 of 2013 as early as on 20.08.2015 and till date the Government has not even filed the Special Leave Petition papers in the Registry of the Supreme Court. Had they at least filed the papers, this Court would have refrained from passing any further orders and would have awaited for the out come of the Special Leave Petition. Whereas, as stated above, the papers have not even reached the Registry of the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it will be a travesty of justice to dismiss the quash application filed before this Court by the petitioner on the ground that the Government is contemplating of filing a Special Leave Petition against the order passed in favour of I.Periyasamy/A2 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6206 of 2013 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 20.08.2015.

¶24

¶25

Coming to the facts of this case it is alleged in the charge sheet that I.Periyasamy/A2 and Thangavel/A3 who is P.A. of A2, had gone to the place of occurrence and I.Periyasamy/A2 had instructed the other accused to proceed with the illegal quarrying saying that he would take care of anything. The allegation is that Thangavel/A3 being the P.A. to the Minister accompanied the Minister to the spot. One of the main grounds on which the learned Single Judge had allowed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6206 of 2013 in favour of I.Periyasamy/A2 was that, the 161(3) statement of the witnesses have been recorded in a cut and paste manner, which did not inspire the confidence of the Court. In the passages referred to by the learned Single Judge, along with the name of I.Periyasamy/A2, the name of Thangavel/A3 also appears. When the Single Judge had disbelieved those passages and quashed the prosecution as against I.Periyasamy/A2, the same should follow suit for Thangavel/A3 also.

¶26

In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner, Thangavel/A3 in P.R.C.No.11 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, is hereby quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

The Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai.

¶32

The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶33

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

1 CC TO Mr.R.PANDIMAHARAJA, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 61436 JIKR TE/MR-KKR/SAR-III : 05/07/2017 : 3P/5C

¶35

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.4660 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.(MD).No.3310 of 2017 20.06.2017

¶36

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

P.Thangavel, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Thangavel, 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

S.Dharmaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Ramamoorthy Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Packiaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Alagusundaram, Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

Jegadeesh Vs the Inspector of Police