Single judge quashed prosecution proceedings under Tamil Nadu Open Places Act. Found no complaint from temple authority; FIR based on hearsay without independent witnesses; continuance would be abuse of process.
Quashed the impugned proceedings in S.T.C. No.1376 of 2018 and allowed the criminal original petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10934 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.10934 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.4985 and 4986 of 2020
1.V.Seenivasan
2.R.Murugan
3.R.Arunachalam
4.A.Manikandan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police, Shenkottai Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.115 of 2018) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Muthamil Selvan,
Sub Inspector of Police, Shenkottai Police Station, Tenkasi District. ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in S.T.C.No.1376 of 2018 on the file District Munisf Cum Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, Tenkasi District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Karthirvelu, Senior Counsel For Mr.K.Prabhu For R1 : Mr.V.Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
2.This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1376 of 2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai.
3.The petitioners are facing trial for allegedly having committed the offence under Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. The case of the prosecution is that when the respondent police were on their patrolling duty, they came across certain wall posters on the wall of Punamalaisoodum Perumal Kovial on 19.03.2018 at about 01.00 pm. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10934 of 2020
When the list witness namely Grade-I constable attached to the Sengottai Police Station made enquiry, they came to know that the petitioners herein had affixed the said posters. In this regard, Crime No.115 of 2018 was registered on 19.03.2018 and after investigation final report was filed before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The case was taken on file and cognizance of the offence was taken and summons were issued to the petitioners herein. The trial is yet to commence.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent states that no case for quashing has been made out.
5.The learned senior counsel would point out that the offence in question would be attracted if any advertisement or poster is affixed on a wall without the written consent of the owner or occupier or person in management of the property, then the offence will be attracted. In this case the wall in question belongs to the temple. But then, no temple authority has been examined as witness. They have also not been cited as a witness.
6.He would also point out that a reading the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., would show that the petitioners have been implicated based on pure hearsay. There is nothing to connect the petitioners with the offending act.
7.More than anything else, no complaint has been received from the temple authority.
8.I am in full agreement with all the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners herein. In this case, the aggrieved party has not filed any complaint against the petitioners herein. The respondent police on their own have chosen to register the FIR and instituted the impugned prosecution. The case was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police. It was he who filed the final report also. He is figuring as L.W.3. In this case there are no independent witnesses. There is absolutely nothing to connect the petitioners herein with the offending act. Therefore, I am of the view that continuance of the impugned prosecution will only amount to abuse of process of law. The impugned proceedings stand quashed. The criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
2/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10934 of 2020
ias
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:-
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.10934 of 2020 29.10.2020
SS(CO) KB(21.12.2020) 3P 5C
3/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Open Places Act should be quashed when police registered FIR without a complaint from the aggrieved temple authority.
Whether the prosecution evidence based purely on hearsay without independent witnesses justifies continuance of the trial.
Whether the registration of FIR solely by the Sub Inspector without a private complaint amounts to abuse of process of law.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Seenivasan
State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Shenkottai Police Station
Muthamil Selvan
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
