M.Ravi... v. R.Palani Subramanian & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Oct 2009
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 352, 354, 427, 447, 448, 454, 456, 506(ii)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. As regards the validity of the complaint is concerned, it is contended that one complaint cannot befiled by two persons; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the complaint filed by two persons jointly is not in the contemplation of the…
- Para 55. The resulting position is that the complaint asit was filed is not valid; all the subsequent steps taken by the learned Magistrate on the complaint are tobe considered as not legal and are thereby quashed. Ifthe complaint is revised in a legal manner in…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 05.10.2009Coram:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHICrl.O.P. No.17900 of 2009andM.P. No.1 of 2009M.Ravi... Petitioner/5th Accusedvs.
R.Palani Subramanian2.P.Gnanasekaran3.Punitha Gnanasekaran... RespondentsComplainantPetition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl. Op.No.17900/09 -Criminal Orginal Petition Praying to call for the records inCC No.888/2009 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, quash the Proccedings therein. For petitioner: Mr.C.S.DhanasekaranFor respondents: Mr.N.Ramakrishnan for M/s. Waraon & Sai Rams,
O R D E R The petitioner, who is a Sub Inspector of Police, taken as A5in C.C. No.888 of 2009 pending on the file of Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for offences under Sections 454, 456,447, 448, 427, 352, 354 and 506 (ii) IPC., seek to quash the said proceedings.
The allegation in the private complaint made by therespondents/complainants, who are relatives, is that R-1 entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat with one T.A.Rathod, Managing Director of M/s.Trans Medica (India) Limited and also settled 85% of the sale consideration, taking possession of the property; under such circumstances, on the instructions of the first accused, who purchased the property in question in spite of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ existence of the agreement of sale entered into by R1 and taking possession of the Flat by R-1, other accused includingA4/Inspector of Police and the petitioner herein/Sub Inspector of Police trespassed into the flat, assaulted the complainants, dragged them to the police station, falsely registered a case in Crime No.49 of 2009 and, in the false case, obtained orders for remanding R-1 and R-2. The occurrence took place at intervals between 06.02.2009 and 09.02.2009, as a result of which, the complainants were dispossessed from the Flat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/A5 Sub Inspector of Police submits that the complaint jointly preferred by three persons before the learned Magistrate is not maintainable in law, for one individual alone could be the complainant and others would be witnesses, but, in the case on hand, three persons have been shown as complainants and the joint and single complaint given by them cannot be entertained. Referring to the case law reported in1989 Law Weekly (Crl.) 186 (Krishnamurthy R. Vs. M.P.Raja), he reiterates that such joint complaint is not valid in the eye of law by drawing attention of this Court to the following observation made therein,"
As regards the validity of the complaint is concerned, it is contended that one complaint cannot befiled by two persons; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the complaint filed by two persons jointly is not in the contemplation of the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and produced before me two decisions: (1) Sashahar Achairya v. Sir Charles Tegari AIR1931 Calcutta 646 wherein it was held that "A joint complaint by two persons is not contemplated by the Code" and(2) Narayanaswami vs. Egappa Reddi 1961 MWN (Crl.)129 wherein it was held that "A complaint could befiled by only one person. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for joint complaints".The learned counsel appearing for the other side would concede that the complaint filed as such was notin order and that it will be possible either to file fresh complaints or to see that one of the complainants withdraws from the complaint.
The resulting position is that the complaint asit was filed is not valid; all the subsequent steps taken by the learned Magistrate on the complaint are tobe considered as not legal and are thereby quashed. Ifthe complaint is revised in a legal manner in one way or the other, the learned Magistrate will deal with it afresh in accordance with law. " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He points out that the above case law has been followed by this Court in the order dated 13.02.2007 passed in Crl.O.P. Nos.27116and 26779 of 2006 and states that on this ground alone, the private complaint preferred against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.3-A. By pointing out that, in the complaint, the order of the High Court dated 06.02.2009 passed in O.A. Nos.936 and 937 of 2009granting injunction in favour of the complainants was highlighted, however, such injunction was vacated by the Division Bench on19.02.2009; it is next submitted, in the private complaint lodged before the learned Magistrate on 05.03.2009, details regardingDivision Bench order were conveniently omitted.
According to the learned counsel, had those relevant details been reflected in the complaint, the learned Magistrate would not have taken cognizance in view of the order passed by the Division Bench, setting aside the injunction granted in favour of the complainant/R1; therefore, on that ground also, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3-B. Thirdly, by relying on the proceedings of the JointCommissioner of Police, South Zone, Chennai Police, bearing R.O.C.No.1087-3/JC(S)/Camp/2008, dated 26.11.2008, whereby the petitioner was deputed for investigation in a triple murder case, learned counsel submits that when admittedly, the petitioner was deputed to perform special duty, the alleged acts cannot be attributed to the petitioner; therefore, looking at any perspective, the proceedings against the petitioner are not sustainable in law, hence, the prayer sought for may be granted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the alleged occurrence took place at intervals between06.02.2009 and 09.02.2009 in which all the three complainants were subjected to physical and mental suffering at the hands of the accused, that is the reason why, all of them joined together and preferred a single private complaint before the learned Magistratesince it was felt just and necessary that the entire spectrum of the sequence of events that took place successively during four days period should be put in vividly and that individual complaints with break-up details would not serve the purpose; hence, according to the learned counsel, such complaint preferred jointly by therespondents/complainants can be accepted in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved.
Secondly, it is submitted that, during the period of occurrence, the order of injunction in favour of the complainants was in force and it was vacated only subsequently. It is further submitted that the factum of the petitioner having been deputed to the team investigating the triple murder case was not known to the complainant, however, they have specific grievance against thepetitioner/A5.5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made with reference to the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Admittedly, a single complaint has been given by three different persons on the ground that the occurrence took place between 06.02.2009 and 09.02.2009 over purchase and possession of aFlat in which all of them were subjected to harassment at the hands of the accused including the petitioner herein. If that be so, different complaints for the alleged acts against each individual would have been filed and the court also would have been requested to take all those complaints for joint trial.
Repeatedly, such practice of filing joint complaint has been deprecated by the ApexCourt as well as this Court. Secondly, when a litigant approaches a court of law, he must come forward with clean hands and there should not be suppression of material particulars so asto procure gainful orders or bypass the procedure outlined. In the present case, seemingly, orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the injunction order in favour of the complainant was conveniently omitted to be mentioned and, as rightly pointed out, had such details been mentioned, the learnedMagistrate would have appreciated the allegations in a different manner. Thirdly, it is the bounden duty of the complainant to collect all relevant materials regarding presence and involvement of the accused in the alleged activities, for, the same is within the domain of the complainant and only after prima facie satisfaction on the allegations based on the materials collected, courts would proceed to take cognizance.
On a perusal of the proceedings, dated26.11.2008, of the Joint Commissioner of Police, it is apparent that the petitioner/A5 was not at all available to attend the worksat the Station since he was deputed for a special task. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings pending in C.C. No.888 of 2009 on the file of the CMM,Egmore, Chennai, are liable to be quashed insofar as the petitionerherein/A5 is concerned and accordingly quashed. Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. ConnectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed. JI. Sd/- Asst. Registrar/True Copy/ Sub. Asst. RegistrarToThe Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.+ 1 cc toMr. C.s. Dhanasekaran, Advocate CC SR.50842+ 1 cc to Mr. Waraon of Sai Rams, Advocate SR.51153Crl.O.P. No.17900 of 2009.GV(CO)EU 26.10.2009.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 352, 354, 427, 447, 448, 454, 456, 506(ii).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 05 Oct 2009.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.