Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2554
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
The Secretary to Government, Public Department, (L&O-D.O) Madras & Another
Versus
P. Rajamani Ammal & Others
Writ Appeal No.2649 of 2001
Decided on : 30-06-2010
For the Appellants: M. Dhandapani, Spl. Government Pleader (W).
For the Respondents:R1, S.A. Rajan, Advocate.
The Public Prosecutor must apply his mind independently, and the court has a supervisory function in granting consent to withdrawal from prosecution.
Headnote:
Withdrawal - Criminal Prosecution - Secs.147, 341, 323, 427, 435 IPC - AIR 1977 SC 2265, 1990 Writ L.R. 316, (1972) 1 SCC 318, (1976) 4 SCC 250, (1980) 2 SCC 155 - The judgment discusses the withdrawal of criminal prosecution against laborers and the legality of the same. It highlights the considerations for withdrawal, the role of the Public Prosecutor, and the grounds for granting consent to withdrawal. The court emphasizes the need for the Public Prosecutor to apply his mind independently and the supervisory function of the court in granting consent to withdrawal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the withdrawal of a criminal complaint against laborers and the order for compensation of Rs.50,000 for damages caused to a jeep.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allowed the Writ Appeal, stating that the compensation order cannot be sustained.
Issues: The issues revolve around the withdrawal of criminal prosecution, the role of the Public Prosecutor, and the legality of the compensation order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the Public Prosecutor to apply his mind independently and the supervisory function of the court in granting consent to withdrawal. It also ruled that the compensation order was not sustainable.
Final Decision: The order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4912/1990 dated 16.03.2001 is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.
(R.BANUMATHI, J)
1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order in W.P.No.4912 of 1990 whereby the learned single Judge quashed the G.O.Ms.No.1873 public (L&O-D.O) dated 211. 1989 whereby Government withdrew the case registered against the labourers in Crime No.544/1988 of Karumalaikoodal Police Station and ordered payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the 1st Respondent.
2. Brief facts are that 1st Respondent is the Proprietrix of Ramesh Metal Works. Ramkumar is her son. In 1988 there was labour strike and the factory was closed. Only few loyal employees were attending the work. Case of 1st Respondent is that on 210. 1988, one Subramaniam was returning to the Company in the jeep bearing registration No.TAL 1000 and at about 9.00 P.M., near the factory of Netchem Silicon Company gate, the striking employees stopped the jeep and they assaulted Subramaniam and also alleged to have set fire on the jeep. Regarding the incident, criminal case in Crime No.544/1988 under Secs.147, 341, 323, 427 and 435 IPC was registered. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Secs.147, 341, 323, 435 r/w.149 IPC before Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur on 31.03.1989 against Respondents 2 to 13 and the same was taken on file as R.C.No.99 of 1989.
3. To ensure industrial peace and amity in the factory, cases registered against the labourers were decided to be withdrawn. The Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, CID had sent his follow up action on the announcement made by Minister for Labour and details of 42 cases registered throughout Tamil Nadu. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1873, Public (L&O-D.O) Department dated 211. 1989 withdrawing 31 cases including Crime No.544/1988 of Karumalaikoodal Police Station.
4. 1st Respondent filed Writ Petition seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash G.O.Ms.No.1873 Public (L&O-D.O) dated 211. 1989, so far it relates to withdrawal of criminal complaint in Crime No.544 of 1988 of Karumalaikoodal Police Station and to direct the Appellants to proceed with the investigation and prosecute the offenders.
5. The learnedsingle Judge held that the Memo filed by the Public Prosecutor did not show that there are bleak chances for the prosecution to succeed and the prosecution was not able to produce evidence for sustaining the charges. Learned single Judge further held that the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur has also not considered whether Assistant Public Prosecutor has applied his mind as a free agent, uninfluenced by irrelevant and extraneous consideration and learned single Judge further observed that the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur have not acted in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajender kumars case [AIR 1980 SC 1510]. Learned single Judge observing that in the case of quashing the impugned order due to efflux of time, it may be impossible for the 1st Respondent to prosecute the matter and ordered compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the value of the jeep estimated by the Fire Service.
6. Challenging the order of learned single Judge, Mr.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that after proper application of mind and to ensure industrial peace, Government has withdrawn the cases and that would not amount to non-application of mind. It was further submitted that when there was no prayer requesting for compensation and when there was no malafide in withdrawing the criminal case, State exchequer cannot be over burdened by award of compensation especially when there was no prayer for the same in the Writ Petition.
7. Contention of 1st Respondent is that before withdrawing the case from the prosecution, notice ought to have been given to the defacto complainant. Learned counsel for 1st Respondent submitted that even if the impugned order is quashed due to efflux of time, it may not be possible for the 1st Respondent to prosecute the offenders and having regard to the passage of time, learne
