Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 2802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Palaniyappan – Petitioner
Versus
K. Kumar @ Rameshkumar – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 1205 of 2015, M.P. Nos. 1, 2 of 2015
Decided On : 26-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Nalliyappan.
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Kulanthaivel.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 147, 323, 506(ii), 447, 120(b), Section 294(b) – Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 – Section 200, 468 - Criminal Original Petition – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Facts of case is that due to civil dispute, on a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial, against petitioners and 8 others, Judicial Magistrate taken cognizance over above complaint under Section 147, 323,506(ii), 447 and 120(b) IPC and issued summons to petitioners herein - Hence, petitioner is before this Court with aforesaid prayer – Held, It is seen that there is dispute with regard to laying of Panchayat pipe line between petitioner's group and father of respondent - Civil Suits were filed by both groups - Civil Suit filed by petitioner's group was dismissed and Suit filed by father of respondent was decree in their favour - Thereafter, , while removing pipe line, there was fight between petitioner's group and respondent, both group gave complaints. Crime, for offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, registered against respondent and his family members, charge sheet filed in C.C. - Case ended in acquittal by Judgment - On other hand, complaint lodge by respondent group, registered in Crime for offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 341 and 323 of IPC, after investigation closed as mistake-of-fact - Thereafter, above private complaint was filed belatedly and cognizance was taken only during 2014 - Admittedly, petitioner was not present in scene of occurrence. Petitioner being the President of Panchayat it is alleged that at his instance occurrence had taken place, further he influenced Police to drop case of respondent - In this case, cognizance ought to have been taken within a period of three years, as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C - In this case cognizance taken beyond the period of limitation - Hon'ble Apex Court in Judgment reported in reported in had held that period of limitation to be considered on date of taking cognizance - In this case, cognizance taken only during 2014, well after three years, beyond period of limitation - Thus, both on facts of case and on law taking cognizance of this case beyond period of limitation is bad in law - In view of same, this Court is inclined to quash proceedings - Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in STC No. 828 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate V, Salem.
2. The brief facts of the case is that due to civil dispute, on a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate V, Salem, against the petitioners and 8 others, the learned Judicial Magistrate taken cognizance over the above complaint under Section 147, 323, 506(ii), 447 and 120(b) IPC and issued summons to the petitioners herein. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that with respect civil disputes between the respondent's family and one Raja and others, civil Suits were filed between them in O.S. No. 718 of 2007 and O.S. No. 138 of 2008. Subsequent to that, on 07.05.2011, there was some dispute while removing pipe line connection with respect to the property, which is the subject matter of the above suit. Pursuant to which, the respondent herein attacked the 2nd accused in the above case and made a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Kondalampatti Police station and they registered a complaint in Crime No. 485 of 2011 under Section 294(b), 323 and 506 (ii) IPC. Pursuant to that, the respondent herein to the counter blast foisted a complaint in Crime No. 486 of 2011 under Section 147, 294(b), 341 and 323 IPC. It was further contended that after investigation, the Inspector of Police, Kondalampatti Police station filed final report in Crime No. 385 of 2011 and referred the complaint as mistake of fact on the complaint of the respondent registered in Crime No. 386 of 2011. Later, after three years from the said occurrence, the respondent herein filed the above complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the same was taken cognizance under Sections 147, 323, 506(ii), 447 and 120(b) IPC.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance on the above complaint, since the complaint made by the respondent before the Kondalampatti Police Station, registered in Crime No. 486 of 2011, under Sections 147, 294(b), 341, 323 IPC was referred as mistake-of-fact in the year 2011 itself, however, after three years from the date of occurrence, he has made the above complaint, which is barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Further, as per the complaint, the allegation does not attract any offence, more particularly, Section 506(ii) IPC. On merits, the learned counsel submitted that even according to the respondent, the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence. The only contention is that the petitioner is the reason for the alleged offence committed by the other accused, as stated in the complaint, FIR as well as in the private complaint. But, no material produced against the petitioner to establish that he had conspired with the other accused in commission of the above offence. The learned counsel in support of his contention, relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnapillai vs. T.A. Rajendran and Another, 1990 SCC Crl. 646, wherein it has been clearly held that filing of a complaint in Court is not taking cognizance and what exactly constitutes taking cognizance is different from filing of a complaint Hence, the learned prayed for quashing of the proceedings in STC No. 828 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate V, Salem.
5. The Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that this case arises out of Crime No. 486 of 2011, which was closed as mistake-of-fact and no notice was served on the respondent. Thereafter, on coming to know the same, the respondent had filed a protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate V, Salem, on 26.05.2011, protest petition was not entertained. Hence the respondent has filed the above private complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner had lodged the c
