MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3152 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.2884 and 2885 of 2023 Tamil Rajendran @ R.Rajendran .. Petitioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Orders reserved on : 30.10.2024

Orders pronounced on : 29.11.2024

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3152 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.2884 and 2885 of 2023

Tamil Rajendran @ R.Rajendran .. Petitioner

Versus

1. State represented through the
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karur Town Sub-Division,
Karur District.

2. The Inspector of Police,
Thanthonimalai Police Station,
Karur District.

3. Raja .. Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Final Report filed in S.C.No.49 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Court/Special Court for SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Karur in connection with Crime No.448 of 2020 on the file of the respondent Police Station and quash as against the petitioner concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.Henri Tiphagne

For Respondents : Mrs.M.Aasha,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side),
for RR-1 and 2

: No Appearance for R3

ORDER

Heard Mr.Henri Tiphagne, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.M.Aasha, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This Criminal Original Petition is filed with a prayer to quash the Final Report filed in S.C.No.49 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Court/Special Court for SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Karur.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this application are that the second respondent Police received a piece of information on 31.07.2020. Therefore, they visited the hospital, where, the de facto complainant was admitted as an inpatient in Room No.201. The de facto complainant stated that he is an Advocate. One Thangamani, residing at Thanthonimalai and one Pavithra, belonging to a different caste, got married at Vellayan Vinayagar temple on 19.06.2020. Both of them filed a Protection Petition before the All Women Police Station, Thanthonimalai and both of them were produced before the said Police Station and thereafter, upon protection, both of them were allowed to go.

4. Under these circumstances, on 27.07.2020, the said Thangamani lodged a false complaint before the Superintendent of Police of the district. On the said complaint, the Inspector of Police, Thanthonimalai Police Station, called the de facto complainant for an enquiry. In the enquiry, the de facto complainant stated that he had nothing to do with the said complaint and based on the professional rivalry and vendetta, a false complaint was given against him. Stating so, he went back to his office. On 30.07.2020, when the de facto complainant was in his office at about 2.20 P.M., the petitioner, Tamil Rajendran, contacted him over the phone and instructed him to come to his office. He went to his office along with his relative Kirubananth. The said Kirubananth stood outside and the de facto complainant went into the office of Tamil Rajendran. Tamil Rajendran alone was present in his office at that time. Upon seeing him, he asked the de facto complainant to come and sit. He stated that he would look after the Thangamani’s case.

5. He further submitted that to wreak vengeance against him, another Advocate belonging to the de facto complainant’s political party namely, Ramachandran, entrusted the case to him. He further castigated the de facto complainant by stating that only because there was reservation, the de facto complainant became Advocate and scolded him with the words ‘**** *****’ and called him a bastard and that he should be finished. Even while saying so, Tamil Rajendran slapped on his cheek and pushed him down. The de facto complainant got pain in his shoulder. When he came out of the office, Tamil Rajendran also followed him out and in the public place, outside his office, again yelled by mentioning his caste name as belonging to the said caste, whether he could conduct the case as opposed to him and thus, abused him by using his caste name. Thereafter, the de facto complainant told his relative, Kirubananth, that as the accused Tamil Rajendran hit him, he was feeling a little giddy. Therefore, Kirubananth took him to the hospital and admitted him and hence, he lodged the complaint.

6. On the strength of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.448 of 2020 under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Thereafter, the first respondent took up the investigation and after the investigation, laid the Final Report. The petitioner herein, made serious allegations of malafide against the de facto complainant, and yet another Advocate. Hence, by the proceedings bearing Reference No.C.No.429/Camp/IGP/CZ/2021, dated 14.12.2021, the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy, directed the first respondent to take up further investigation concerning further evidence handed over by the accused/petitioner Tamil Rajendran and file an additional report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Pursuant thereto, the statement of the petitioner herein was also recorded. The audio recording of the telephonic conversation, which is said to have happened between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, were also handed over. Two other persons, who are supposed to have presented in the office of the petitioner Tamil Rajendran at the time of the incident namely, one Shanmugam and one Anand Raj were also examined and their statements, along with the audio recording and the telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the de facto complainant were forwarded as the additional materials to the Court forming the part of the Final Report. It is at this stage, that the present petition is filed.

8. Firstly, the petitioner seeks quashing of the case on the ground that the entire case is an abuse of process of law engineered by one Marappan. The de facto complainant, on his instructions and support, gave the false complaint willfully against the petitioner. The second contention is that the case, as such, is replete with inherent contradictions and the Final Report, filed by the first respondent is not at all sustainable.

9. Detailed arguments are made by the learned Counsel concerning malafide by referring to several other proceedings, including Bar Council proceedings etc. However, I am inclined to consider the same since the said Marappan is not a party to these proceedings, while, all the allegations are made against him with reference to engineering a malafide complaint. Therefore, the only question, that has to be considered is whether there are prima facie materials against the petitioner to proceed with the complaint by taking the materials at face value.

10. In this regard, the entire complaint of the de facto complaint, word by word, is narrated above in the facts. The Final Report is filed after investigation. The first respondent/Investigating Officer found that the de facto complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The first accused, Ramachandran, who also belongs to the Scheduled Caste, had previous enmity with the de facto complainant as both of them belong to the same political party and there was a rivalry. As per the Final Report, one Thangamani got married to one Pavithra. Thereafter, the said Thangamani complained on 25.06.2020 vide Petition No.292 of 2020 before the All Women Police Station, Karur. In the said complaint, Raja appeared for Thangamani. Towards his legal fee, the Motor Bike, belonging to one Ayyasamy, which was being used by the said Thangamani, was pledged. In the said issue, the first accused namely, Ramachandran intervened in favour of Thangamani prepared the complaint obtained the signature of Thangamani and lodged the same with the Police and both of them had previous enmity.

11. Pursuant thereto, on 29.07.2020, at about 2.00 P.M., the first accused Ramachandran and the second accused, Tamil Rajendran indulged in a conspiracy against the de facto complainant, Raja. To wreak vengeance, Ramachandran sent Thangamani to Tamil Rajendran and instructed him to continue the case. Tamil Rajendran further proceeded against the de facto complainant, Raja. On the date of occurrence i.e., on 30.07.2020 at 2.20 P.M., Tamil Rajendran contacted the de facto complainant, Raja over the phone and instructed him to come to his office. When the de facto complainant, Raja went to his office, in a disrespectful language he instructed him to come and sit. Thereafter he threatened him in the manner as narrated in the F.I.R and slapped him inside his office and thereafter, followed him outside his office and vilified him by using his caste name hence the Final Report is filed under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. Concerning the incident, it can be seen that in the statement of Raja, he does not mention the complaint given by the mother of the said Pavithra, but, however, he stated that a petition for protection was given on 19.06.2020. Thereafter, Thangamani lodged a complaint on 27.07.2020 and he appeared before the Inspector of Police for enquiry on 31.07.2020 and submitted that he had nothing to do with the complaint. In this regard, the first respondent himself seems to have examined the said Thangamani. The said Thangamani states as follows:-

“ehd; tf;fPy; uh$h vd;gth; K:yk; fU:u; midj;J kfspu; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; fhty; Ma;thsu; mth;fs; tprhuizf;F M$uhndd;/ vdf;F 21 taJ g{u;j;jp Mftpy;iy vd;gjhy; ehd; jpUkzk; bra;jJ rupay;y vd;W fhty; Ma;thsu; mwpt[iu tH’;fpajhy; gtpj;uh mtuJ tpUg;gg;go mth; njhHpa[ld; brd;Wtpl;lhu;/ vdf;F tHf;fwp”uhf te;j uh$h vd;gtu; TLjyhf tf;fPy; gP!; nfl;ljhy; ehd; Xote;j ma;ahr;rhkp vd;gtuJ ,uz;L rf;fu thfdj;ij vLj;Jf;bfhz;lhu;/ mjdhy; ma;ahr;rhkp vd;gtu; tHf;fwp”u; uhkr;re;jpud; vd;gth; K:yk; tHf;fwp”u; uh$h kPJ g[fhh; bfhLg;gjw;fhf vd;ida[k; miHj;J te;J fhty;Jiw cau; mjpfhhpaplk; g[fhh; bfhLj;jhu;/ me;j g[fhiu uhkre;jpund jahh; bra;J te;J mjpy; vd;dplk; ifbaGj;J th’;fpdhh;/ me;j g[fhupy; tHf;fwp”h; uh$h kPJ eltof;if vLf;FkhW vGjpapUe;jhu;/ mjd; gpd;g[ vd;id tHf;fwp”h; uhr;re;jpund tHf;fwp”u; jkpH; uhn$e;jpud; vd;gthplk; nf!; elj;Jtjw;F mDg;gp itj;jhu;”

13. The first respondent also examined the owner of Motor Bike, Ayyasamy, who had stated as follows:-
” v’;f bjUtpy; trpf;Fk; j’;fkzp vd;gtu; vdf;F gHf;fkhdth; mtu; ntiyf;F bry;tjw;fhf ,uz;L rf;fu thfdk; nyhdpy; th’;f ntz;Lk; vd;W nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljhy; ehd; ,e;j tUc&k; khu;r; khjk; vdJ bgahpy; ,uz;L rf;fu thfdk; nyhd; nghl;L th’;fp me;j tz;of;F khjhkhjk; j’;fkzp gzk; fl;Lk; tifapy; th’;fp bfhLj;J me;j tz;oia j’;fkzp Xl;o te;jhh;/ ,e;epiyapy; j’;fkzp $^d; khjk; jdf;F bjupe;j gtpj;uh vd;w bgz;iz fhjy; jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;ljhy; gtpj;uhtpd; mk;kh fU:u; midj;J kfspu; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhu; bfhLj;J mjdhy; Vw;gl;l gzg;gpur;ridf;fhf uh$h vd;gth; vdJ bgahpy; ,Ue;j tz;oia mlF itj;Jtpl;ljhft[k; mjw;fhf j’;fkzpf;F Mjuthf tf;fPy; uhkr;re;jpud; vd;gtu; uh$h kPJ nghyP!py; g[fhu; bfhLj;jpUg;gjhft[k; mjdhy; mtu;fSf;Fs; gpur;rid Vw;gl;ljhft[k;”

Thus, the only conclusion the first respondent Investigating Officer ought to have made is that whatever the de facto complainant stated in the complaint, as if a false complaint is lodged against him, is incorrect and to pay the Advocate fees, he pledged the Bike belonging to a third person namely, Ayyasamy which was used by the said Thangamani.

14. However, the Final Report proceeds on the following lines:-
” ,jpy; j’;fkzp jug;gpy; M$uhd tHf;fwp”u; jpU/uh$ht[f;F tHf;fwp”u; fl;lzk; bfhLg;gjw;fhf j’;fkzp gad;gLj;jp te;j jpU/ma;ahr;rhkp vd;gtUf;F brhe;jkhd ,uz;L rf;fu thfdj;ij mlF itj;J tHf;fwp”u; fl;lzk; bfhLj;jjhy; thfdj;jpd; chpikahsuhd jpU/ma;ahr;rhkp vd;gtUf;F Mjuthf tHf;fwp”h; jpU/f/uhkr;re;jpud; jiyapl;L mtnu tHf;fwp”h; jpU/uh$h kPJ g[fhh; jahh; bra;J j’;fkzpaplk; ifbaGj;J bgw;W tHf;fpd; g[fhh;jhuuhd tHf;fwp”h; jpU/uh$h kPJ g[fhh; jahh; bra;J j’;fkzpaplk; ifbaGj;J bgw;W tHf;fpd; g[fhh;jhuuhd tHf;fwp”h; jpU/uh$h kPJ khtl;l fhty; fz;fhdpg;ghsuplk; g[fhu; bfhLj;jjhYk;. tHf;fwp”h; jpU/uh$h vd;gtUf;Fk; tHf;fwp”h; jpU/f/uhkr;re;jpud; vd;gtUf;Fk; fl;rp uPjpahft[k; gpur;rid ,Ue;J te;jjhy; ,UtUf;Fk; Vw;fdnt Kd;tpnuhjk; ,Ue;J te;Js;sJ/”

Thus, it can be seen that the first respondent manoeuvres the same without arriving at any finding as to whether the de facto complainant, Raja pledged the Bike belonging to Ayyasamy or not.

15. It is very clear from the materials, which are collected by the first respondent himself that the de facto complainant, Raja, pledged the Bike for the Advocate fees. The second part of the Final Report is that in the said complaint, the petitioner/second accused was roped in to appear as an Advocate for the complainant, Thangamani. It is the case of all the parties that on the day of occurrence i.e., on 30.07.2020, the second accused called the de facto complainant, Raja, to his office for discussion. The call is recorded by the petitioner/second accused and the same was also taken as material under further investigation and the same is also part of the Final Report.

16. It is the contention of the petitioner that on going through the entire call, it can be seen that because an allegation is made against the Advocate, the second petitioner had only made the call to him to find out the details, in which, both of them were cordially discussing the issue and that the second accused had never invited the de facto complainant to his office. The first respondent/Investigating Officer also collected the said material, and he did not find that the said recording was false or doctored.

17. In this regard, he also examined two other persons namely, one Shanmugam and Murugan, who made statements to the Investigating Officer that they were present in the petitioner/Advocate’s office at the time when the de facto complainant came. According to them, the petitioner/second accused was having his lunch when the de facto complainant, Raja, came to his office and the said Raja told the petitioner that since both of them are Advocates, let not the second accused, Tamil Rajendran interfere in the matter. Tamil Rajendran refused the request and said that since a client was coming for his help, he would help him in accordance with the law. Upon this, the de facto complainant threatened him that he would face dire consequences and left the scene. The first respondent did not give any opinion about the said witnesses. Therefore, there are statements of the de facto complainant and the other two eyewitnesses to the incident as if the petitioner herein abused the de facto complainant by using his caste name inside and outside the office. Two other witnesses say that it is only the de facto complainant who threatened the second accused and that the second accused did not abuse the de facto complainant. Thus, it can be seen that the materials, which are filed along with the Final Report, are inherently contradictory to each other.

18. It is in this context, that the words, which are repeatedly alleged by the de facto complainant and parroted by the other alleged eyewitnesses, are to be considered by this Court. It is the exact allegation that after coming out of the office, in public, the petitioner herein narrated the following statement:-
” … vd;id vjpu;j;J tHf;F elj;Jfpw mst[f;F ijupak; te;JLr;rh bjhyr;RLntd;”

Thus, after the caste name, the particular statement about whether he was emboldened to conduct the case opposing the second accused, is mentioned.

19. In this regard, considering the circumstances there is no question of the de facto complainant conducting a case against the second accused. It is the second accused, who is said to have been assisting one Thangamani in lodging the complaint regarding pledging of the Bike belonging to Ayyasamy, in turn of a higher and additional fee of Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, the words which are allegedly spoken, are inherently improbable and not relevant to the context of the allegations made by the de facto complainant. Besides, even after a specific allegation of malafide, the de facto complainant also did not choose to appear before this Court and refute the said allegation.

20. On a careful and wholesome consideration of the materials, it can be seen that the second accused, was giving professional advice to the complainant, Thangamani, the de facto complainant gave the complaint. On the face of it, it seems to be inherently improbable and the Final Report and the materials which are collected by the first respondent are inherently contradictory to each other concerning every fact which is mentioned in the Final Report. As such, even taking the materials which are collected, at face value, I am of the view that no offence can be said to be made out. On the contrary, it can only be reasonably deduced that the entire exercise is an abuse of process of law and in view thereof, I am inclined to interfere in the exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

21. In view thereof, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The Final Report filed in S.C.No.49 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Court/Special Court for SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Karur in connection with Crime No.448 of 2020 on the file of the respondent Police Station shall stand quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

29.11.2024

Neutral Citation: yes
grs

To

1. The Principal District Court/Special Court
for SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,
Karur.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karur Town Sub-Division,
Karur District.

3. The Inspector of Police,
Thanthonimalai Police Station,
Karur District.

4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3152 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.2884 and 2885 of 2023

29.11.2024