Dismissed

Anand Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Jun 2021CRL OP/689/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a final report. The Court held that the investigation was fair, corroborated by eye witness statements, and proceedings pending since 2011 must be completed within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Crl. O.P. dismissed; directions to complete trial within nine months.

Anand Krishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 07.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.689 of 2016 and

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.333 of 2016

¶7

Anand Krishnan

¶8

Arjun

¶9

Ramakrishnan

¶10

Sivanandam ... Petitioners/Accused

¶11

Vs.

¶12

State of Tamil Nadu

¶13

rep. By Inspector of Police S-4, Nandambakkam Police Station, Chennai - 89 ... Respondent /Complainant

¶14

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the final report in C.C.No.727 of 2011 pending trial on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.Abdul Saleem

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The present Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the final report in C.C.No.727 of 2011 pending trial on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and quash the same.

¶19

The allegations levelled against the petitioners, as per the FIR is that one Sriram, defacto complainant, lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that on 16.08.2011, while the defacto complainant was at the tennis ground situated at No.45, Defence colony, Nadambakkam, the petitioners had attacked, abused with filthy language and assaulted him on various parts of the body. On account of the same, the defacto complainant suffered multiple injuries all over the body. Therefore, he lodged a complaint requesting the Police at

¶20

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

¶21

Nandambakkam to take action against the petitioners.

¶22

On the strength of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, C.S.R. No.122 of 2011 was issued and thereafter, FIR No.301 of 2011 was registered and a final report in C.C.No.727 of 2011 was filed. In the abovesaid FIR, it is averred that the 1^st petitioner, A.1 has attacked the defacto complainant with hands, pushed him down and further attacked on his stomach. Therefore, the 1^st petitioner / A.1 was charged with offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Further, A.4, viz., Sivanandam, 4^th petitioner had abused the defactocomplainant with filthy language, therefore, he was charged with offence punishable under Section 294(B) IPC. That apart, A.2 and A.3, the petitioners 2 and 3 had prevented the defacto complainant from going outside, hence they were charged with offence punishable under Section 341 IPC. Seeking to quash the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶23

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners deny all the allegations made in the complaint and categorically state that the same are totally false, baseless and made only with malafide intentions. Further, the petitioners are highly qualified and residents of Ekkatuthangal defence colony for the past 35 years and always they work for the betterment of the society.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that the petitioners are arrayed and included as accused on the false allegations of the defacto complainant, who is habitually engaged in quarrelling and disturbing the peace of neighbourhood. Also, the value attributed to the allegations of the defacto complainant would clearly reflect that no prima facie case has been made out and the entire alleged incident is imaginary only to harass them.

¶25

It is represented on behalf of the petitioners that there are no overtacts attributed and no specific charges against the petitioners. The investigation conducted does not reveal any occurrence, as alleged in the complaint and even the medical report is vague. He would also submit that neither medical report nor the statement of any of the witnesses reflect the commission of any offences alleged and as such, the entire case is based on the false complaint of the defacto complainant. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the order of this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.390 of 2015 [Prasanna @ Prasanna Venkatesh Vs.State represented by Station House Officer, Pondicherry].

¶26

In contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has filed a detailed counter

¶27

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

¶28

affidavit, wherein he had averred that based on a complaint by the defacto complainant, a case was registered by S-4 Nandambakkam Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No.301 of 2011 under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) IPC on 16.08.2011. Thereafter, the then Sub Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence and prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar in presence of witnesses namely, (i) Vekatesan (ii) Yuvaraj and recorded their statements and also examined the defacto complainant, viz., Sriram and eye witnesses, namely, Munusamy, Chinnadi and Rathinam. Further, one Dr.Rajasekar, was also examined, who had given treatment to the complainant and also issued wound certificate and corroborated the same with the version of the complainant.

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent further averred that the 1^st petitioner / A.1 and 2^nd petitioner /A.2 were arrested on 17.08.2011 and remanded to judicial custody and the 3^rd and 4^th petitioners / A.3 and A.4 filed an anticipatory bail petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and they were granted anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.4931 of 2011 on 18.08.2011. Further, the petitioners had filed discharge petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, vide Crl.M.P.No.767 of 2015 dated 02.02.2015 and the same was dismissed.

¶30

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that the respondent conducted investigation in a fair and free and impartial manner in accordance with law, by complying with all the mandatory provisions during the course of investigation. The respondent registered a case, investigated and filed the final report before the concerned court and the same is pending for trial. Hence there is no necessity to call for the records relating to the final report in C.C.No.727 of 2011 pending trial on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and quash the same, as prayed by the petitioners.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the documents placed on record.

¶32

It is the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are the members in society and there is no averments in the complaint with regard to what abusive words, the petitioners had projected on the defacto complainant. Further, the petitioners would state that CSR was registered on the complaint given by the defacto complainant and immediately, without proper investigation, FIR itself was lodged. Moreover, it is also clear from the Doctor's certificate that the injuries are simple in nature and all the

¶33

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

¶34

police officers were transfered due to the arrest of the elderly / influenced members.

¶35

It is also the case of the petitioners that the defacto complainant, one Sriram is the habitul offender and on number of occasions, he had quarreled with the defence personnel, thereby caused nuisance to the persons in and around the area and the same is evident by the letter dated 27.08.2011 addressed by the Residents of Defence Officers Colony, Nandambakkam, Chennai to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and by letter dated 22.12.2014 by the Tamilnadu Area Defence Officers Co-operative Housing Society Limited to the Inspector Law and Order, Nandambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

¶36

From the perusal of the records, it is seen that Munusamy, eye witness to the incident was examined and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

¶37

“----rpthde;jk; vd;gth; ,tid cijj;jhy; jhd; g[j;jp tUk; vd Twp mrp';fkhd thh;ijfshy; jpl;odhh;/ mg;nghJ _uhk; m';fpUe;J brd;whh;/ Mdhy; mtiu uhkfpUc&;zd;. mh;$%dd; Mfpnahh; m';fpUe;J bry;y Koahky; jLj;J epWj;jpdh;/ mg;nghJ _uhk; m';fpUe;J bry;yKoahky; jLj;J epWj;jpdh; mg;nghJ Mde;jfpUc&;zd; vd;gth; jdJ ifahy; _uhik moj;J fPnH js;spdhh; mth; fPnH tpGe;jt[ld; Mde;jfpUc&;zd; vd;gth; _uhk; tapw;wpy; fhyhy; vl;o vl;o cijj;jhh; clnd mth; m';fpUe;J vGe;J mth;fsplkpUe;J jg;gpj;J Xodhh;/ vd;id tprhhpf;f ehd; ele;jij Twpndd;/ ”

¶38

Further, one Chinnadi, eye witness to the incident had also averred the same words, as stated by abovesaid Munusamy, during his evidence/

¶39

Taking note of the above said statements made by the eye witnesses and upon perusal of the complaint given by the complainant, it is clear that the complaint and the statement of eye witnesses corroborates with the FIR. Further, from the perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is crystal clear that the respondent after thorough investigation had filed a final report and same is pending trial, hence this Court is of the view that the same cannot be quashed at this time. Moreover, when the eye witnesses to the occurrence have been brought on record and they were examined by the prosecution and the same corroborates with the FIR, the petitioners having failed to disprove the same, cannot now come forward and plead to quash the Calender case in C.C.No.727 of 2011 without any basis and valid reasons.

¶40

In view of the above, the present Criminal Original Petition fails and the same stands dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to co-operate with the trial pending in C.C.No.727 of 2011 and since the case is pending from the year 2011 onwards, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur is also

¶41

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

¶42

directed to complete the proceedings pending in C.C.No.727 of 2011 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶46

ssd

¶47

¶48

1.The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

¶49

2.The Inspector of Police S-4, Nandambakkam Police Station, Chennai - 89.

¶50

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶51

+1cc to M/s.A.A.V.Partners, Advocate, S.R.No.27554

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.689 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.333 of 2016

¶53

RK(CO) CB(16/07/2021)

¶54

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

Anand Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

N.Ranganathan Vs G.N.Preetha

Hemalatha Vs Kalaiselvi

T.S.Punithan Vs P.Akilandeswari @ Akila

Duraisamy Vs the Inspector of Police

A.K.Abinesh Vs M.Deepa

S.Vairavanathan Vs M/S Prem Finance Corporation