Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENGOTTUVELAN
P. S. Saravanabhavanandam and Another - Appellant
Versus
S. Murugaiyyan and Another - Respondent
Case No : Cr. M.Ps. Nos. 9167 of 1985 and 16 of 1986
Decided On : 17 February 1986
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 301 - INTERVENTION IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL PROCEEDINGS - RIGHT OF NEAR RELATIVES OF THE DECEASED - HELD, NEAR RELATIVES OF THE DECEASED HAVE NO RIGHT TO INTERVENE THEMSELVES IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO BAIL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, relations of the deceased, filed petitions to intervene in the anticipatory bail petition of the accused, who was the husband of the deceased. The deceased died due to extensive burn injuries, and a dying declaration was also recorded from her. The petitioners alleged that the death was due to homicidal violence by the accused and sought to intervene in the anticipatory bail proceedings to present the necessary facts before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to implead a third party in a prosecution case. Section 301 Cr.P.C. provides for instructing a pleader to prosecute any person in any case, and such pleader shall act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor. The court also noted that the petitioners were not seeking to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings but only prayed for permission to intervene in the matter to submit the necessary facts.
Issues: 1. Whether the near relatives of the deceased have the right to intervene themselves in proceedings relating to bail. 2. Whether the petitioners can be permitted to intervene in the anticipatory bail petition with a view to represent matters before the court, when there is no provision for intervention in the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on its earlier decision in Dyarmar S. v. State by the Inspector of Police, where it was held that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. to implead a third party in a prosecution case. 2. The court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, where it was observed that the Criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wreaking private vengeance, and the State is primarily responsible for bringing the offenders to book. 3. However, the court noted that the Supreme Court has contemplated a few exceptions, and in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, it was held that the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. 4. The court also relied on the decision in A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, where it was held that the right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a strait jacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the petitions, holding that the petitioners have no right to intervene themselves in proceedings relating to bail. However, the court clarified that it is open to the petitioners to make representations to the court relating to the application for anticipatory bail to further the ends of justice.
These two petitions are filed by the relations of the deceased to intervene in the petition for anticipatory bail in Cr.M.P. 8892 of 1985 on the file of this Court.
2. The facts are briefly as follows : One Packia Rani alias Usha wife of S. Murugaiyyan, the petitioner in Cr.M.P. 8892 of 1985, died on the morning of 18-10-1985 at the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Madras. Earlier on 17-10-1985, at about 4.15 p.m. the said Packia Rani alias Usha was admitted in the hospital for extensive burn injuries, by her husband Murugaiyyan. A dying declaration also is said to have been recorded from her. The petitioner in Cr.M.P. 9167 of 1985, P. R. Saravanabhavanandam, the brother of the deceased, who proceeded to the hospital on 18-10-1985 afternoon, finding that his sister is dead, gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was in the hospital, immediately saying that he suspected foul play on the part of Murugaiyyan and that in view of the past conduct on his part, he suspected that his sister was murdered by Murugaiyan by pouring kerosene over her clothes and lighting her clothes. The petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 9167 of 1985 also pointed out that in the post-mortem report No. 654/85 dt. 19-10-1985, a vertical contusion 4 cm x 1.5 cm on the scalp in the middle behind the parietal eminence was also described. The petitioner also states that the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 1983 provides for speedy and proper investigation and prosecution of cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of death caused due to harassment on account of dowry. The anticipatory bail petition of Murugaiyan will have to be considered in this context, and in order to place the proper materials before this Court in the anticipatory bail petition, the petitioner in Cr.M.P. 9167 of 1985 wants to intervene in the proceedings.
3. In Cr.M.P. 16 of 1986, the father of Murugaiyan is seeking the same relief to enable him to present the proper facts before the court, so that this court could come to the conclusion in the matter of granting anticipatory bail.
4. In the common counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, Murugaiyan, it is stated that the allegation that the death of the deceased is due to homicidal act on his part is denied. It is also contended that the petitioners have no locus standi for intervening in the proceedings in Cr.M.P. 8892 of 1985, as the State is primarily responsible for bringing the offenders to book in criminal cases and anybody interested in assisting the prosecution can only assist the Public Prosecutor to submit a written argument with the leave of the Court at the enquiry, trial or appeal. There is no provision by which the petitioners can ask for permission to intervene in anticipatory bail proceedings at the very inception of the case.
5. The point for determination in both these petitions is whether the near relatives of the deceased have the right to intervene themselves in proceedings relating to bail.
6. On behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. 9167 of 1985 a photostat copy of the letter said to have been written by Murugaiyan to the deceased on the eve of her death to show that there had been differences of opinion between the deceased and her husband Murugaiyan is filed. On the strength of this letter and the attendant circumstances under which the deceased met with her death, it is contended that death was not accidental as alleged by Murugaiyan, but there are circumstances to show that death was due to homicidal violence. To bring out the circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner will have to be heard in the course of the proceedings for anticipatory bail in Cr.M.P. 8892 of 1985.
7. This Court had occasion to consider the request on the part of a third party related to the deceased for being impleaded in the bail petition filed by the accused, in the case reported in Dyarmar S. v. State by the Inspector of Police, 1985 Mad LW (Cr) 219. After considering the relevant provisions and the decisio
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
