Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1814
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Senthil Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
S. Palani Kumar - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 27351 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided On : 04-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. L. Srilekha
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Manoharan
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120 (B), 148, 149, 450, 325, 307 r/w 34 – Criminal Produce Cod, 1973 - Sections 200 and 482 – Criminal Case - Rioting, armed with deadly weapon – Criminal Conspiracy and unlawful assembly - Attempt to murder – Seeking to quash of private complaint - Petitioner is that above Private Complaint in P.R.C. on file of learned Judicial Magistrate filed by respondent is an abuse of process of law and same is not maintainable under Criminal Law - Respondent/complainant, he was acid attacked by petitioner and some others and thereby have involved in offences stated above - Thereupon a complaint lodged by respondent before Inspector of Police and a F.I.R. in Crime came to be registered against petitioner and one another under Sections 452, 326 & 506 (ii) of IPC - Held, When Magistrate has accepted R.C.S. second complaint should be filed only after setting aside order passed by learned Magistrate in referred charge sheet - However, respondent has not taken any such action and instead, had filed a second complaint which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance - It has been held in above decisions that taking cognizance in second complaint makes same not maintainable – Court concurring with views of decisions referred above, and as such it has to be held that second complaint which is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, in CC is not maintainable and the proceedings have to be quashed - Therefore, in view of Ratio laid down above by this Court, court opinion that second complaint on hand in P.R.C., on file of learned Judicial Magistrate is not maintainable - Criminal Original Petition succeeds.
The petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition to call for the records relating to P.R.C. No. 14 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the above Private Complaint in P.R.C. No. 14 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram filed by the respondent is an abuse of process of law and the same is not maintainable under Criminal Law. Therefore invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner has come up with the present Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the above private complaint in P.R.C. No.14 of 2010 pending against him.
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Original Petition runs as follows that the petitioner herein is accused by the respondent namely S. Palanikumar in the above private complaint for having committed the alleged offences under Sections 120 (B), 148, 149, 450, 325, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. According to the respondent/complainant, he was acid attacked by the petitioner and some others on 11.12.2007 at about 5.00 A.M and thereby have involved in the offences stated above. Thereupon a complaint dated 11.12.2007 lodged by the respondent before the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram and a F.I.R. in Crime No.910 of 2007 dated 11.12.2007 came to be registered against the petitioner and one another under Sections 452, 326 & 506 (ii) of IPC.
4. Whereas on investigation of the above complaint the concerned police found that there is no incriminating material or any evidence traceable against the petitioner, and hence the corresponding final report was filed before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram to the effect that action dropped as closed, since the actual offenders were non-traceable. Accepting the same, the said F.I.R. in Crime No.910 of 2007 dated 11.12.2007 was closed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore the respondent has filed the above private complaint in P.R.C.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner/A2 and some others.
5. I heard Mrs. L. Srilekha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the entire records.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he never involved in the alleged offence stated above. Originally the petitioner is a family friend of the respondent s father-in-law namely Mayilsamy. Due to the matrimonial dispute existed between the respondent and his wife namely Yamilamala, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the above offence as if in collusion and at the investigation of Mayilsamy, the petitioner has committed the above offence. The said complaint is an utter false and the same came to lime light through the final report filed by the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram finding that there is absolutely no any incriminating material or evidence or witness found corroborating the complaint of the respondent. In fact the petitioner s name is neither found in F.I.R nor any overtact set out in complaint.
7. Furthermore it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint on hand being a second complaint filed in respect of the same occurrence is not at all maintainable either on law or fact. Since the reference charge sheet has been filed by the concern police in the earlier complaint given by the respondent, he cannot again maintain a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The same is an abuse of process of Law which is warranted interference by this Court.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the above acid attack was made by the petitioner, so as to favor his friend the 1st accused namely Mayilsamy. It is the petitioner, who attacked the respondent. Though due to the said attack the petitioner was in shock and collapsed, such that he was not in
