High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Raja v. The State represented by - Crl.R.C.(MD).No.79 of 2007  RD-TN 2089 (27 June 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27/06/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.79 of 2007
Crl.M.P(MD)No.2 of 2007
Raja ... Petitioner Vs
The State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vangal Police Station,
Karur District. ... Respondent Prayer
Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed by the learned District Sessions Judge, Karur, in Crl.M.P.No.840 of 2006, dated 05.02.2007. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi
For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned District Sessions Judge, Karur, in Crl.M.P.No.840 of 2006, dated 05.02.2007.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The background facts which are absolutely germane for the disposal of this petition would run thus:
The police registered the case in Cr.No.213 of 2005 on 08.12.2005, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 354 I.P.C read with Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, based on the complaint given by one Raja against Kalianna Gounder, S/o.Vaiyapuri Gounder, Sutty Vathiyar, S/o.Palaniappan, Subramaniyan, S/o.Arumugam, Muthusamy, S/o Ammaiyappa Gounder, Periyasamy S/o.Kaliyanna Gounder, Kanda Samy, S/o.Autocara Shanmugam. Subsequently, the police laid the police report and thereupon, the matter is now pending before the learned Special Judge for S.C and S.T Act cases.
4. Raja, the petitioner who is the defacto complainant herein, would plead that earlier, he filed Crl.O.P.No.2716 of 2006 and got an order on 24.03.2006 from this Court. The operative portion of that order, would run as under: "3. The learned Government Advocate submits that on conclusion of the investigation, final report has been filed and it may be taken on file by the learned Magistrate.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the mean time the witnesses have been threatened by the accused and that is why the present petition has been filed.
5. I have heard the rival contention and perused the materials available on record. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it is upto the petitioner to file a separate complaint before the respondent-police. With this observation, this petition is closed."
5. While so, the petitioner Raja filed an application before the Special Court under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C for ordering further investigation which was dismissed.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such an order, the present Revision has been filed on the main ground that even though in the F.I.R, there is reference to the missing of gold chain weighing seven sovereigns and subsequently, the lady concerned namely, Rani who lost that chain gave a statement to the police that named accused persons viz., alone snatched away the chain, yet the police has not taken any steps.
7. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the police acted in a biased manner even at the time of registering the F.I.R and subsequently, the police was trying to pressurise the petitioner to agree for unjustifiable compromise for which, he did not agree.
8. The learned Counsel for the accused/interveners would submit that the petitioner is in the habit of harassing them by filing petitions, for including Section 397 I.P.C as against them. The is now posted for trial.
9. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also.
10. In this factual matrix, what transpired is that there was an incident took place on 06.12.2005, wherein some persons belonging to S.C and S.T Community sustained injuries and thereupon, the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned, took up the investigation. In the F.I.R, the following is found specified:
"vq;f mk;khr;rpf;F ,lJ ifapy; Cik fhak; Vw;gl;L ,Ue;jJ. rz;il Koe;jJk; vq;f mk;kh fGj;jpy; nghl;oUe;j 7 gt[d; brapd; fGj;jpy; ,y;iy. Eifia fhzhky; ,Ue;jjhy; njo ghh;j;njhk; fpilf;f tpy;iy."
11. The learned Counsel for the accused would prima facie and ex facie, convincingly and acceptably put forth his argument that in the F.I.R without specifically alleging about the factum of the accused persons having snatched away the gold chain weighing seven sovereigns, simply stated as though the chain was missing and subsequently as an afterthought by implicating two named accused persons as though they forcibly snatched away the said gold chain, Rani gave statement. This according to the accused, is an embellishment for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused.
12. No doubt, this variation highlighted by the learned Counsel for the accused even though at the first blush is attractive, yet the learned Counsel for the petitioner would try to torpedo by arguing that purely because of the interference of the police, such missing of the version occurred in the F.I.R and that the victims are entitled to protection under the S.C and S.T Act. The police, as per petitioner, in a malicious and perfunctory manner, incapacitated the victims to put forth their case effectively.
13. Since such serious allegations are made by the petitioner and in the mean time, the interest of the accsued also has to be protected, I am of the considered opinion that the following direction would strike a balance between the interest of both the parties:
The Superintendent of Police concerned shall call for the file from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Investigating Officer) and look into the matter and while considering so, due opportunity shall be given to the victims as well as to the accused to air their grievance and thereupon, if he could see that any further investigation is required, let him do it himself or direct further investigation to be done by any other authorised Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate into the offences punishable under the provisions of the S.C and S.T Act. Thereupon, the matter shall be finalised and if for any reason, the Superintendent of Police considered that there is no scope for further investigation or if further investigation might reveal that there is no case for filing additional charge sheet, the result of their findings shall be communicated to the petitioner in writing and thereupon, it is for the petitioner to take further action at his end.
14. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.2 of 2007 is also closed. rsb
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vangal Police Station,
2.The District Sessions Judge, Karur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.