Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. HEMALATHA, J.
K.K.Mahalingam - Petitioner
Vs.
R.Palanisamy - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.17773 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided On : 28-08-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.S.Dhanasekaran
For the Respondent: M/s V.Raghupathy
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-compliance of court orders by a public servant does not necessarily amount to an offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Disobedience - Criminal Complaint - Section 166 IPC - [PUBLIC SERVANT disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person] - [Section 166 IPC] - The court discussed the ingredients of the offence under Section 166 IPC and the obligation of a public servant to furnish documents perused during investigation. The court also considered the need for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevance of non-compliance of court orders in filing a criminal complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner, a police inspector, for alleged disobedience of court orders and an offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.160 of 2011, contending that the complaint was an abuse of process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's non-compliance with court orders did not amount to an offence under Section 166 IPC. It held that the proceedings in C.C.No.160 of 2011 were misconceived and quashed them.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's obligation to furnish documents perused during investigation, the relevance of non-compliance of court orders in filing a criminal complaint, and the need for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as an investigating officer, was not obligated to furnish the documents perused during investigation. It also determined that the non-compliance of court orders did not give rise to a criminal complaint under Section 166 IPC. The court did not consider the need for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the proceedings were quashed on other grounds.
Final Decision: The criminal original petition was allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.160 of 2011 were quashed.
The petitioner Mr.K.K.M.Mahalingam, Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Coimbatore City is the accused in C.C.No.160 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.
2. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present petitioner in C.C.No.160 of 2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore for an alleged offence punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention of the respondent/complainant is that he (respondent) lodged a complaint dated 13.10.2008 with the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore district, against 10 persons including the Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Annur, Coimbatore District and the petitioner herein though registered the First Information Report in Crime No.16 of 2008, filed a referred charge sheet on 13.01.2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. According to the respondent, though a notice was issued to him along with a copy of the final report, the copies of documents relied on by the petitioner herein were not furnished to him, inspite of repeated requests both oral and in writing made by him. It is further contended by the respondent in his complaint in C.C.No.160 of 2011 that, he filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore District on 19.01.2011 to direct the petitioner to hand over the copies of documents to him and that though it was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, the petitioner did not furnish the copies of the documents. He has therefore, filed the private complaint in C.C.No.160 of 2011.
3. The said private complaint was taken cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and summons were also sent to the petitioner. Therefore, he filed the present petition to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.160 of 2011 on the following grounds.
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, without any authority, has passed the order dated 04.03.2011 directing the respondent to furnish the documents scrutinized by the investigating officer, the petitioner herein to the de-facto complainant.
2. The disobedience of the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore would not give rise to filing of complaint under Section 200 of the Code of the Criminal procedure for an alleged offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner is not required under any law to furnish the documents to the complainant, scrutinized by him during the course of investigation.
4. The prosecution in C.C.No.160 of 2011 is an abuse of process of law.
4. A perusal of the records shows that the respondent/ complainant filed a petition dated 04.03.2011 under Section 363(5) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure read with Rule 339 of Criminal Rules of Practice before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore to direct the petitioner herein to furnish the documents perused by him (Investigating Officer) in Crime No.16 of 2008. The said petition was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 04.03.2011. A perusal of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore shows that it is passed without application of mind. In fact, no speaking order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. However, this order was not challenged by the petitioner in this petition. The specific contention of the respondent/complainant is that, the petitioner herein has not obeyed the order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, He therefore, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.160 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.
5. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code.
Public Servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. - Whoever, being a public servant, knowingl
