IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.Nos. 700 and 4378 of 2005 and M.P.Nos. 340 & 1682 of 2005 1. M.G. Srinivasan .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 4378 of 2005 2. S. Anidha 3. Saraswathy 4. Sampath 5. Kannapran 6. Guna 7. Prabu 8. Nandhini .. Petitioners 1 to 8 in both the petitions Versus 1. Maheswari .. Respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 700 of 2005 2. State rep. by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Coonoor Nilgiris (Dt.) .. Respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 4378 of 2005 Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.700/05: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records relating to P.R.C. No. 11 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor and quash the same. Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.4378/05: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No. 19 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Prabakaran For B. Kumarasamy For R1 : Mr. C.D. Johnson Legal Aid Counsel For R2 : Mr. J.C. Durairaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) *****
C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioners, who are accused 1 to 8 in a case pending in P.R.C. No. 11 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor seek quash of proceedings therein. The first petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R. pending against him in Cr. No. 19 of 2004 on the file of the second respondent.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is a false one initiated at the instance of the then District Judge, Ooty. The matter arose out of an infamous affair involving the first petitioner, an advocate the then Judicial Magistrate Coonoor and the then District Judge, Ooty. The matter led to a situation where the members of the bar rose in support of the first petitioner leading to boycott of Court and drawing attention also of the State Bar council. Suffice it to say that the District Judge, subsequently was terminated.
3. A complaint was preferred by the 1st respondent on 07.12.2004 and again on 08.12.2004 before the District Judge, Ooty. The complaint dated 07.12.2004 informed that the Superintendent of Police, Ooty had not taken any action on her complaint dated 03.11.2004 against the first petitioner. The complaint dated 08.12.2004 informed of offences under Sections 376 and 417 IPC committed against her by the first petitioner. For reasons inexplicable, the then District Judge forwarded the complaint dated 07.12.2004 to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor and the other complaint dated 08.12.2004 to the Superintendent of Police, Ooty to register a case and investigate thereon. The Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor examined the complainant and her mother on 14.12.2004. Cognizance was taken for offences under Sections 376, 493, 326, 379 and 506(i) IPC against the first petitioner, under Sections 323, 379 and 506(i) IPC against petitioners 2 and 3 and for similar offences r/w 109 IPC against the other petitioners in P.R.C. No. 11 of 2004. The complaint dated 08.12.2004 came to be forwarded to the All Women Police Station, Ooty and the same was registered in Crime No. 19 of 2004 for offences under Sections 376 and 417 IPC against the first petitioner. As indicated above, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.700 of 2005 seek quash of proceedings in P.R.C. No. 11 of 2004 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No. 4378 of 2005 seeks quash of FIR in Cr. No. 19 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police.
4. The complainant in the case informs of a torrid affair and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as also Amicus Curiae appearing for the 1st respondent and perusing the materials available on record, it is seen that even at this stage, observations made by this Court in granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the first petitioner in respect of Crime No. 19 of 2004 hold good. This Court in order in Crl.O.P. No. 39667 of 2004 dated 06.01.2005 observed as follows:
“4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no prima facie case could be seen from the allegations in the complaint itself, cannot be so lightly brushed aside. The petitioner is a major lady, aged about 32 years, married got divorce also from her husband thereby showing that she is a lady having wordly knowledge, who cannot plead any ignorance. Her case appears to be that when she approached the accused in the month of September 2003, in connection with a case, she was subjected to sexual assault, probably a rape. She has not given the date in which, she met the petitioner and what is the case, which she intended to entrust to the petitioner / Advocate. Further, though there are allegations as if, complaints were preferred to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, The Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, no copy of those complaints, has been attached in order to find out whether the same allegations, as made in this complaint had been levelled or some other allegations have been levelled in those petitions, which are said to have been preferred by her to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, The Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
5. In the absence of those documents, considering the bare allegations, that the complainant was subjected to sexual assault in the month of September 2003 appears to be not well founded at present and only after recording the evidence or conducting the investigation, as the case may be, a case, if at all, could be made out and therefore, I am not inclined to give any finding in this regard.”.
This apart, in the typedset of papers, we find a letter of the first respondent dated 15.10.2004 wherein she has admitted to having caused trouble to the first petitioner both at his office and residence at the instance of some others. The letter dated 03.11.2004 of the brother of the respondent / complainant would also support the stand that the complaint against the first petitioner and others is not a genuine one. We also find from the extract of the ‘A’ Diary of the concerned Court that right from the period 01.08.2006 to 31.12.2008, the respondent / complainant has not appeared before such Court. The respondent / complainant, despite service, has not appeared or caused appearance before this Court.
5. In the circumstances, this Court finds nothing that would deter it from acting on the letters of the Defacto Complainant and her brother and finding that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matters hanging fire. Even on merits, this would be a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court is inclined to accept the prayer sought for by the petitioners in the above petitions. Therefore, both the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. The proceedings in P.R.C. No. 11 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor and further investigation in Crime No. 19 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
6. The State Legal Services Authority, Chennai is hereby directed to pay a remuneration of Rs.2,500/- for each case totalling Rs.5,000/- to the Amicus Curiae Mr. C.D. Johnson, who rendered assistance to this Court in disposal of the petitions.
ar
To
1. Judicial Magistrate,
Coonoor
2. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Coonoor, Nilgiris (Dt.)
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras