Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VANISRI versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vanisri v. The State represented by - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6472 of 2006 [2007] RD-TN 1605 (24 April 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 24/04/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6472 of 2006

Vanisri ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The State represented by

The Inspector of Police (Crime),

Melur Police Station,

Melur.

2.The Sub Inspector Police,

Keelavalavu Police Station,

Melur Taluk.

3.A.Kattuva,

Revenue Inspector,

Keelavalavu Firka,

Melur Taluk.

4.C.Rajendran ... Respondents (R3 impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2006 in Crl.O.P.No.6472 of 2006 dated 14.09.2006 and R4 impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2006 in Crl.O.P.No.6472 of 2006 dated 18.10.2006) Prayer

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the F.I.R in Cr.No.166 of 2006 on the file of the second respondent .

For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Swaminathan

For Respondent ... Mr.L.Murugan

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 and R2

... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for R3. :ORDER



This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the F.I.R in Cr.No.166 of 2006 on the file of the second respondent .

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited from the records could be portrayed thus:

Consequent upon the complaint lodged by one Kattuva, the Revenue Inspector of Keelavalavu Firka, the third respondent herein, as against one Mani and Vanisri the petitioner herein, the police registered the case in Cr.No.166 of 2006 on 04.08.2006 and at that relevant time, Vanisri was the President of the Panchayat Union concerned.

3. The nitty-gritty of the complaint as found set out in the F.I.R is to the effect that under the pretext of auctioning the ordinary small trees on the lake bund, the said accused with their men cut and removed the grown-up valuable and worthy trees without obtaining necessary sanction as contemplated under the law.

4. Based on that, the police registered a case in Cr.No.166 of 2006 and took up the investigation.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the method and manner in which the complaint was lodged and the case registered, this petition has been filed on the various ground inter alia thus:

Section 230 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 is an embargo for the said complaint being filed and cognizance taken. Section 232 of the said Act would protect the Chairman from being prosecuted haphazardly. The Panchayat Union is empowered to exercise its control over the trees situated in Poramboke lands. The petitioner herein is in no way connected with the alleged theft of those trees. Accordingly, she prayed for quashing the F.I.R.

6. The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent C.Rajendren, would submit that under the pretext of auctioning the unwanted trees grown on the lake bunds, the valuable trees were cut and removed by both the accused.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that in fact, both the accused in collusion with each other indulged in cutting huge trees and thereby committed the offence and that the sanction contemplated under Sections 230 and 232 of the Act are not necessary in view of the criminal act perpetrated by them.

8. During arguments, it transpired that during the pendency of this petition, charge sheet was filed, it was taken as C.C; the charges were also framed; the matter was been posted for trial and that in fact, P.W.1 was examined in chief also.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that no application was filed for discharging the petitioner even before framing of the charges and that the case is being tried.

10. The core question arises as to why not this Court while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, quashed the proceedings, while the charge sheet itself was filed only during the pendency of this petition? No doubt, if the factual matrix warrants so, it could be resorted to.

11. Cutting across the technicalities and for the purpose of rendering justice, the inherent power of this Court could be exercised on sound and valid reasons.

12. The learned Counsel for the intervener, R4 showed some photographs of big trees near the lake bunds having been found cut.

13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that those photographs are relating to some other area and it was an attempt to let loose red herrings, so as to side track the main issue. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner himself produced certain photographs where the Pillaiyar Kovil is found situated on the lake bund and nearby that, there are lot of trees.

14. Now, by looking into the photographs, at this stage, the Court cannot arrive at a final conclusion, but only during trial, necessary evidence relating to those photographs should be adduced and thereupon its evidentiary value could be assessed.

15. Relating to the submission that Section 230 of the said Act, I would like to highlight that if the Court finds that certain acts had taken place within the ostensible power of the President of the Panchayat, then Section 230 of the said Act would be an embargo and the petitioner should be exonerated for want of sanction. The dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in Lalu Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49 could fruitfully be referred to. The facts are such that by no stretch of imagination, such cutting of huge trees by Vanisri, be termed as one within her ostensible power as President of the Panchayat.

16. The cutting of huge trees by the President, if at all within the power of the President, then it would attract the embargo under Section 230 of the said Act.

17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first accused is the auction purchaser and he might have committed or not committed such cutting of big trees and at the most, if proved, he would alone be liable and not the President. He would also further submit that even before the petitioner taking note of what had happened, the Revenue Inspector lodged the complaint without giving room for the Present to intervene and see as to what actually happened. Such an argument for invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, fails to carry conviction with this Court for the reason that till date, the said petitioner had not raised her little finger to find fault with the first accused or to highlight that such trees were cut quite antithetical to or against the terms and conditions of the auction. But, on the other hand, the clear contention of the petitioner would be that such big trees were worth about Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) and that amount was deposited in the proper account on 27.07.2006 and that the complaint itself emerged belatedly.

18. Hence, I do not find that this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction. It is for the petitioner to put forth her defence and the learned Magistrate has to concentrate on the specific defence plea raised based on Sections 230 and 232 of the said Act and deal with it in accordance with law.

19. With the above observations, this petition is closed. rsb

To

1.The Inspector of Police (Crime),

Melur Police Station,

Melur.

2.The Sub Inspector Police,

Keelavalavu Police Station,

Melur Taluk.

3.The Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai. 


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.