Dismissed¶30

Jiji Mathew v. The Home Secretary

Madras HC6 Feb 2025WP/1532/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Malafide prosecution claim rejected; compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- refused; writ of mandamus under Article 226 dismissed; FIR Crime No.528 of 2009 (Sections 336, 427, 294(b), 506(i) IPC; Section 3 TNPPDL Act) on complaint of K.Selvaraj; C.C.No.1833 of 2010 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore; quash in Crl.O.P.No.5452 of 2011 by order dated 13.12.2019 as parking dispute; fifth respondent T.Savarinathan, then Inspector of Police, H-3 Tondiarpet Police Station; petitioner JIJI Mathew; representation dated 26.10.2022; no costs.

What did the court decide?

While quashing the criminal proceedings, this Court never held that it was a malafide prosecution; the proceedings were quashed only considering the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice. ¶29

Jiji Mathew Vs The Home Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 3 can be directed, on the petitioner's representation dated 26.10.2022, to take appropriate action against the fifth respondent for malafide prosecution and to pay Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.

¶22

Court's answer

¶29

Ratio / Principle

It cannot be said that the fifth respondent initiated malafide prosecution against the petitioner; therefore, the directions sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted, as the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.), W.P.No.1532 of 2023, decided 06.02.2025: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 (Home Secretary, Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai) to take appropriate action against the fifth respondent (T.Savarinathan, then Inspector of Police, H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station) for malafide prosecution, and to pay Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for shame, public humiliation, financial, physical and mental sufferings allegedly since 19th September 2009, based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.10.2022. The prosecution stemmed from a complaint by the sixth respondent (K.Selvaraj) on which FIR Crime No.528 of 2009 was registered for offences under Sections 336, 427, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act; cognizance was taken in C.C.No.1833 of 2010 (Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore), and this Court had quashed the entire proceedings by order dated 13.12.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.5452 of 2011, observing a parking dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent. Held: the quashing order never pronounced the prosecution malafide — it rested only on the facts and circumstances and the ends of justice; hence no malafide prosecution could be attributed to the fifth respondent and the directions sought could not be granted. Writ petition dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.1532 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.1532 of 2023

JIJI Mathew

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

The Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶13

The Inspector of Police, H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.

¶14

T.Savarinathan Then Inspector of Police, H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.

¶15

K.Selvaraj ... Respondents

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 6

¶17

W.P.No.1532 of 2023

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fifth respondent for malafide prosecution and also pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as a compensation for all the shame, public humilation, financial, physical and mental sufferings since 19 th September 2009, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.10.2022.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar For Respondents For R1 : Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader For R2 to R4 : Mr. A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed for direction to the respondents

¶22

1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fifth respondent for malafide prosecution.

¶23

2. On the complaint lodged by the sixth respondent, the fifth

¶24

respondent registered a FIR in Crime No.528 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Section 336, 427, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, as against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, the fourth respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6

¶26

W.P.No.1532 of 2023

¶27

in C.C.No.1833 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, as against the petitioner. Subsequent, the petitioner filed quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5452 of 2011 and this Court by an order dated 13.12.2019, quashed the entire proceedings after considering the ingredients of the offence by observing that it is a parking dispute between the petitioner and sixth respondent. After quashing the criminal proceedings, now the petitioner filed the present writ petition to take appropriate action as against the fifth respondent for malafide prosecution.

¶28

3. This Court, while quashing the criminal proceedings, never held

¶29

that it is a malafide prosecution. Only considering the facts and circumstances of the case and to met the ends of justice quashed the proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the fifth respondent initiated malafide prosecution as against the petitioner. Therefore, the directions sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted and the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶30

4. Accordingly, t he Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be

¶31