P. Baskaran v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.08.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.8220 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007P.Baskaran ..Petitioner/1st AccusedVersusThe State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police,Central Crime Branch/II,Egmore,Chennai- 600 008.(X.Crime No. 630 /2000) ..Respondent/ComplainantPetition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the recordsin CC No.8052 of 2006 on the file of the Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8 and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj, Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E RThe petitioner/accused-1 has filed this above Criminal OriginalPetition to call for the records in CC No.8052 of 2006 on the file ofthe Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8and quash the same.2.The prosecution case is that one Mr.M.Rajeswaran,Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Annasalai,Chennai-2 has made a complaint against the (1) petitioner/Bhaskaran(2) K. Palanivel, Foreman, Grade II, Tamilandu Electricity Board,Villivakkam and (3) S. Kalyanam, Commercial Inspector, TamilnaduElectricity Board, Royapuram, Chennai-13 before the Central CrimeBranch, Chennai city, Chennai.3.The crime branch, after receipt of the said complaintregistered a case in Crime No.630 of 2000 on an alleged offence underSections 419, 420 r/w 109 of I.P.C. The respondent police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigated the matter and filed a final report under Section 173(2)of Cr.P.C before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai-8. The final report reveals that in the year 1994,based on the Khalid Committee and Supreme Court orders, temporarylabourers were made permanent labourers. The contract labourer,C.Karunakaran, who is an accident victim at the work spot, was askedto appear for the interview on 27.12.1994. That being so, theaccused-1, with the help of accused A2 and A3, who were holdingimportant position in C.I.T.U and also in the selection committeepanel, by way of impersonation etc., got appointment in the place ofC. Karunakaran and cheated the complainant.4.Further, the accused No.1, noted above, who was working asa casual labourer presented himself as Karunakaran in order to obtainregular employment in the place of Karunakaran, who lost his vision,blurred in an electrical accident in the year 1992 and the accused-1,being a contract labourer, in order to get himself regularised,attended the interview in the year 1994 as Karunakaran. However,subsequently, from 03.01.1997, he did not attend the job. Later, ashis name was recommended and enlisted as per the Khalid Commissionreport as a contract labourer, he got absorbed as helper in regularcadre in his own name.5.The accused A2 and A3, knowingly abetted the act ofimpersonation by accused A1, enabled him to secure the appointment inthe place of genuine candidate, Karunakaran, who did not opt toattend the interview due to his vision, affected in an electricalaccident. Thus, the accused A1, appears to have made himself, liablefor an offence punishable under Section 419 I.P.C for impersonatinghimself as Karunakaran and under Section 420 I.P.C for cheating theTamilandu Electricity Board. While accused A2 and A3 appeared tohave committed an offence under Section 419, 420 and r/w 109 of I.P.Cfor having abetted A1 in securing the employment. In the said case,A1 to A3 were arrested and remanded to Judicial custody. They werelodged in Central Prison, Chennai. This is the prosecution case.6.Now, the petitioner has filed the quash petition for thebelow mentioned reasons. The petitioner has stated that in the year1985, the petitioner joined the Tamilnadu Electricity Board as acasual labourer to do the manual work of digging, laying pipes,laying cables etc. This was through a contractor. In respect ofregularisation of the service of the petitioner and persons similarlyplaced like him, litigations were initiated before industrialadjudicator. Ultimately, by an order of the Honourable SupremeCourt, Honourable Mr. Justice V.Khalid was appointed to decide theissue relating to regularisation and to submit suitablerecommendation. The petitioner is one of the persons, who had beenabsorbed in the services of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board based onthe recommendations of Honourable Mr.Justice V. Khalid. Along withthe petitioner, thousands of contract labourers were absorbed. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the process of large scale absorption, there had been some confusionin the name assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner received hisabsorption in his nickname. When enquired in this regard, it wasinformed that it was by mistake and in due course, it will berectified. 7.It is submitted that due to family circumstances, thepetitioner resigned his employment on 31.12.1996. Thereafter, thepetitioner again joined as a contract labourer in the TamilnaduElectricity Board, owing to his needs and to sustain himself. TheTamilnadu Electricity Board selected the petitioner to the post ofhelper by its order dated 11.07.1997 and the petitioner joined dutyon 16.07.1997. The petitioner has been discharging his worksincerely and efficiently. It is further submitted that theSuperintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle,(North), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board preferred a complaint on01.08.2000 as if the petitioner impersonated one Karunakaran andjoined employment with them as helper on 04.07.1995. This was withregard to the first absorption, which the petitioner had resigned.Based on the complaint, there had been no action by the respondentpolice since the year 2000. The Superintending Engineer, TamilnaduElectricity Board, who had preferred the complaint with therespondent police, initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing acharge memo dated 22.12.2000. The sum and substance of the chargesin the disciplinary proceedings were that the petitioner hadimpersonated one C.Karunakaran and obtained employment with the TamilNadu Electricity Board during the year 1994. The charges levelledagainst the petitioner were in respect of the first absorption and itwas also the subject matter of the complaint preferred by theSuperintending Engineer to the respondent police.8.It is submitted that the Superintending Engineer conducteda domestic enquiry in respect of the charge memo dated 22.12.2000.After enquiry the Superintending Engineer, initially proposedpunishment vide his proceedings dated 29.05.2002. However, theSuperintending Engineer after considering the fact that nothingremains in the charges levelled against the petitioner, by hisproceedings dated 27.09.2006, dropped the charges levelled againstthe petitioner. While so, the respondent police arrested thepetitioner on 15.12.2006 in respect of the complaint preferred by theSuperintending Engineer. Thereafter, the petitioner was released onbail by this Hon'ble Court by an order dated 08.01.2007 inCrl.O.P.No.561 of 2007. 9.It is submitted that even though the alleged occurrencetook place in the year 1994, the Superintending Engineer preferredcomplaint only in the year 2000. The respondent police after theproceedings being dropped by the Superintending Engineer, ChennaiElectricity Distribution Circle, North, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,filed the charge sheet on 19.12.2006 in C.C.No.8052 of 2006 before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after a long andunexplained gap of six years without applying its mind. Thepetitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.1. The charge sheet runsas follows:"That the accused A1 noted above who was working asa Casual Labourer presented himself as Karunakaran inorder to obtain regular employment in the place ofKarunakaran who lost his vision blurred in an electricalaccident in the year 1992 and the accused being thecontract labourer in order to get himself regularisedattended the interview in the year 1994 as Karunakaran.However, subsequently from 03.01.1997 he did not attendthe job. Later as his name was recommended and enlistedas per the Khalid Commission Report as a contractlabourer he got absorbed as Helper in regular cadre inhis own name.The accused A2 and A3 knowingly abetted the act ofimpersonation by accused A1 enabled him to secure theappointment in the place of genuine candidateKarunakaran who did not opt to attend the interview dueto his vision affected in an electrical accident. Thus the accused A1 appears to have made himselfliable for an offence punishable under Section 419 ofIPC for impersonating himself as Karunakaran and underSection 420 of IPC for cheating the management. Whileaccused A2 and A3 appeared to have committed an offenceunder Section 419, 420 r/w 109 of IPC for having abettedA1 in securing the employment. 10.It is submitted that when the defacto complainant itselfhas dropped the proceedings, the respondent police has filed thecharge sheet without applying its mind. In such circumstances, thepetitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court to quash the proceedingsin C.C.No.8052 of 2006 on the file of Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 in X Crime No.630 of 2000 insofaras petitioner is concerned.11.After perusal of the complaint and contentions of thepetitioner and other connected records filed by the petitioner,namely, F.I.R, Charge Memo, Chargesheet etc., and arguments advancedby the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent, theCourt is of the view that the petitioner had admitted that he workedin the name of Karunakaran instead of his original name Baskaran, S/oPerumal. Further, it has been alleged that the SuperintendingEngineer had dropped the charges levelled against the petitioner byhis proceedings dated 27.09.2006. While so, the petitioner has alsoalleged the action of the respondent police in filing the charge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sheet only exhibits total non-application of mind. This Court feelsthat if the Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board hadreally withdrawn the charges against the petitioner, the petitionercould have approached the same officer, who is the defactocomplainant for getting remedy. But this Court, in the prevailingcircumstances of the case could not interfere with the proceedings inCC No.8052 of 2006 on the file of Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8. Therefore, the CriminalOriginal Petition No.8220 of 2007 has got to be dismissed.Accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarmraTo1. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8.2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch/II, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.8220 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007NSM (CO)GSK 16.11.2009.