Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 2916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
V.Anbazhagan – Appellant
Versus
The State rep. By The Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL. O.P. Nos. 3574, 4802, 4280, 7749, 4914, 4978, 7747, 7748, 4976, 4886, 4906, 4283, 4800, 4801, 3575, 4918, 4285, 4977, 4284, 4281, 4799, 4282, 8467 of 2018 And Crl. O.P. No.97 of 2019 And Crl. M.P. Nos.3997, 2009, 2437, 2440, 3996, 3994, 2379, 2431, 2010 to 2018, 4391, 2374 to 2378, 2480 TO 2482, 3995, 1583, 2008, 2443, 2373, 1585, 2372, 2007, 1584, 1586 of 2018 & 61, 11947 & 11948 of 2019, W.P. No. 13120 of 2017, W.M.P. No. 14020 to 14022 of 2017
Decided on : 05-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Om Prakash, SC, for M/s. S.Kumaradevan
For the Respondent: Mr. A.Gopinath, Mr. V.Elangovan, adv
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure code, 1973 – Section 482, 383, 384 – Indian Penal code, 1860 - Sections 384, 506 (i), 294 (b), 384, 336, 506 (ii), 501, 502, 387, 186, 353 - Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3 (1) (m) and 3 (1)(s) - Petitioner threatened defacto complainant that he will publish scandalous materials against them in daily “Ullatchi Alasal”, if they fail to accede to his demand for payment of ransom money, in some cases as a lumpsum and in some other cases as lumpsum and also monthly payments - Defacto complainants, have, therefore, knocked doors of law enforcing agency by filing respective complaints based on which criminal machinery was set in motion leading to registration of respective crime, some of which have been taken cognizance of by respective Magistrate on filing of charge sheet on completion of investigation - Present petitions have been filed for quashment of crime number and/or case on file of respective Magistrate – Held, law enforcing agency, rather than being law enforcers, have acted as law breakers by going after petitioner, without proper materials - Law enforcing agency, forgetting their duty to society and also forgetting oath that they have taken as custodian of law have breached barriers and acted in a manner, which is wholly unlawful and deprecatable - Law enforcing agency is bound to investigate matter properly, collect requisite evidence and proceed against persons, who have breached rule of law - Common man looks upon law enforcing agency as his saviour and in that scenario, fence should not eat crops - If such a situation is allowed to surface, then rule of law will vanish and there will be total lawlessness in society, which will lead to anarchy - It is also to be pointed out that authorities higher up hierarchy in law enforcing department are bound to keep a watch on their subordinates and their functioning, which should be in interest of common man and not for purpose of guarding and perpetrating illegal acts - It is high time that higher echelons in law enforcing department take up matter seriously and keep a continual watch on performance of their subordinates so that law enforcing agency acts within rule of law and for betterment of citizens and society - Criminal original petitions allowed.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - [21001421180029] - [21001421180032] - [21001421180033]
Question 1?
How to determine if a police action registering multiple FIRs against a journalist can be quashed as abuse of process under Article 226/Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
Question 2?
What is the standard for exercising inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when the materials show mala fides or lack of prima facie evidence?
Question 3?
What are the instances where a court should intervene to protect fundamental rights of free speech/press against harassment by law enforcement authorities?
ORDER :
The great Tamil Poet Thiruvalluvar, had, centuries back, cautioned the human race not to accept any statement uttered by any person and believe it, but to dwell deep into the said statement, which alone shows the intellect. However, throwing caution to the winds and with scant regard to the rule of law, the law enforcing agency has started dancing to the tunes of individuals unmindful of the fact that its their ardent duty to be the protector of the lawful citizens and not to take sides with individuals, who are law breakers. The present case is a classic example of one such instance in which a law abiding citizen, for bringing certain facts to the notice of the law enforcers, is made to run from pillar to post to get himself absolved from the penal action, which have been taken against him under the guise of upholding the rule of law by the respondent police to safeguard certain unscrupulous elements, which are cobwebs in the governmental machinery.
2. More than two dozen cases have been thrown against the petitioner under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code of which Sections 384 and 506 (i) IPC are found in most of the cases. In addition to the above Sections, Section 294 (b), 384, 336, 506 (ii), 501, 502, 387, 186, 353, etc., have also been invoked in addition to Section 3 (1) (m) and 3 (1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The sum and substance of the complaint in all the cases is that the petitioner threatened the respective defacto complainant that he will publish scandalous materials against them in the daily “Ullatchi Alasal”, if they fail to accede to his demand for payment of ransom money, in some cases as a lumpsum and in some other cases as lumpsum and also monthly payments. The respective defacto complainants, have, therefore, knocked the doors of the law enforcing agency by filing the respective complaints based on which the criminal machinery was set in motion leading to the registration of the respective crime, some of which have been taken cognizance of by the respective Magistrate on the filing of the charge sheet on completion of investigation. Therefore, the present petitions have been filed for quashment of the crime number and/or the case on the file of the respective Magistrate.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the whole web of the prosecution case smacks with mala fides and even a bare perusal of the complaints would show that they said complaints are mere concoction only with a view to put shackles on freedom of the Press and freedom of speech enshrined as constitutional guarantees. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there are broadly four types of classification in which the cases have been registered, viz.,
i) The petitioner said to have personally demanded money by threatening the defacto complainant with publication of scandalous materials;
ii) The petitioner calling the defacto complainant over phone and demanding money and threatening him with publication of scandalous materials;
iii) The petitioner sending Whatsapp Message and demanding money and threatening him with publication of scandalous materials;
iv) The petitioner, through other persons, threatened the defacto complainant and demanded money threatening him with publication of scandalous materials.
4. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, being a members of the Press, the act of the petitioner in publishing materials which bring to light very many corrupt and illegal activities of very many persons, has incurred the wrath of very many persons of whom, the defacto complainants are few of the persons, which has led to the filing of the present complaints to seal the lips of the petitioner.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner highlighted upon the complaints being lodged by the respective defacto complainants at the same time in the police s
