Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
K.V. VS. Kandasamy And Others, Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Crime Branch, Coimbatore - Respondents
Crl.O.P.No.5155 of 1994 and Crl.M.P.No.3723 of 1994
Decided On : 18 June 1999
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 173(8) - REOPENING OF CASE - FURTHER INVESTIGATION - POWER OF POLICE - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S JURISDICTION - DELAY IN FILING CHARGE-SHEET - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - FORGERY - LACK OF MATERIALS - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ONE ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged with offenses under Sections 120-B, 395, 201, 467, 471, and 109, IPC, for allegedly conspiring to cut down two live rosewood trees in government poromboke land and then attempting to cover up the crime by submitting false statements. The case was initially closed due to the expiration of the limitation period but was later reopened upon the discovery of new evidence. The petitioners challenged the reopening of the case and the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet, arguing that the proceedings were illegal and should be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the police had the power to conduct further investigation and file a fresh report even after submitting an earlier report requesting the magistrate to drop the matter. The court also held that the mere delay in filing the charge-sheet was not a ground to quash the proceedings, especially in a case involving dacoity. However, the court found that there was a lack of materials against one of the petitioners, the Tahsildar, with respect to the alleged forgery of a compounding statement. Therefore, the court quashed the proceedings against the Tahsildar but dismissed the petitions of the other petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the police had the power to conduct further investigation and file a fresh report after submitting an earlier report requesting the magistrate to drop the matter. 2. Whether the delay in filing the charge-sheet was a ground to quash the proceedings. 3. Whether there was sufficient evidence against the Tahsildar to support the charges of forgery.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which permits further investigation in respect of an offense after a report under sub-section (2) has been submitted. The court held that this provision gives the police the power to conduct further investigation and submit another report to the magistrate, even if the earlier report was filed requesting the magistrate to drop the matter. 2. The court held that mere delay in filing the charge-sheet would not be a ground to quash the proceedings, particularly when the instant case relates to the occurrence of dacoity. 3. The court found that there was a lack of materials against the Tahsildar with respect to the alleged forgery of a compounding statement. The court noted that the Tahsildar had sent a report to his superiors stating that he had information that the first petitioner was the person who arranged for the cutting of the trees. The court held that this statement did not support the allegation that the Tahsildar had recorded a false statement and sent it to the higher officials, purporting to be the compounding statement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition filed by the Tahsildar and quashed the proceedings against him. The court dismissed the petitions of the other petitioners and directed the magistrate to proceed with the committal proceedings against them.
This is an application to quash the entire proceedings pending in P.R.C. No. 6 of 1994 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi filed by the petitioners A1 to A5.
2. The petitioners were charge-sheeted on 31-12-1993 for the offences under Ss. 120-B, 395, 201, 467, 471 and 109, IPC. The following is the gist of the charge-sheet :-
"The first petitioner A1 was the sitting MLA for Kinathukadavu constituency in 1983. The second petitioner A2 is the younger son and fourth petitioner is the younger brother of A1. The third petitioner A3 was an accountant under the first petitioner. The fifth petitioner A5 was working as Tahsildar at Pollachi. During the last week of January, 1983, the petitioners 1 to 3 and approvers Sugamaran and Rathinaswamy hatched a criminal conspiracy at the house of the first petitioner at Negaman by agreeing to do certain acts of dacoity by cutting the two live rose-wood trees standing in Government poromboke lands at Sankarayapuram village in Pollachi Taluk. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, second petitioner and third petitioner along with approvers Sugumaran and Rathinasamy and other paid workers went to the said village on the night of the next day and cut the said two live rose-wood trees which were worth about Rs. 34,398/- standing in Government poromboke land. Thereupon, on 28-3-1983 at about 11 a.m., at the instigation of the first petitioner and with the assistance of the fourth petitioner, the witnesses Duraivelu and Gurunadhan came with false names of Antony and Mani respectively and gave a false joint statement stating that they cut the trees. Knowing fully well that they were fictitious persons, the fifth petitioner Tahsildar recorded false statements and sent the same to the Taluk Office, Pollachi purporting to be the compounding statement. Again a week prior to 3-11-1983, at the instigation of the first petitioner, the petitioners 2 and 3 with approver Rathinasamy and others cut the roots and stumps of the two rose-wood trees and removed and burnt them along with the remanents of the cut branches of those trees and caused the said evidence to disappear with the intention of screening the above said offenders of dacoity from legal punishment."
3. Regarding the occurrence took place in January, 1983, a case was registered in Crime No. 36 of 1983 on 19-2-1983 by the Kinathukadavu Police on the complaint given by the Tahsildar, Pollachi. For the second occurrence which took place a week prior to on 3-11-1983, another case was registered in Crime No. 191 of 1983 under Section 379, IPC by the Kinathukadavu Police Station on 17-11-1983. On 30-4-1986, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi dropped the matter under Crime No. 36 of 1983 under Section 468 of Criminal. Procedure Code since the limitation period of three years had expired. But, however, on coming to know of the fresh materials, in pursuance of the order of the Government, on the application filed by the Police, the case which was closed on 30-4-1986 was reopened on 29-7-1986 to enable the Police to take up further investigation. However, the same was closed as undetected on 28-9-1988. As regards the case in Crime No. 191 of 1983 which was registered on 17-11-1983, was closed as undetected on 19-4-1984. However, the same was reopened on 8-6-1990 by the order of the Inspector General of Police (Crimes). Since the said case was found to have connection with the Crime No. 36/83, as per the directions of the Higher Officials of Police, the petitioners filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi for reopening the case in Crime No. 36/83 also. The petition was ordered on 30-10-1990 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi. Thereafter, the further investigation was commenced on 26-4-1991 on the fresh materials which came to light. It was revealed during the course of further investigation that both the occurrences were taken place in pursuance of single conspira
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
