The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Railway Protection Force cannot file a charge sheet and initiate prosecution without filing a proper complaint as mandated under Section 180A of the Indian Railways Act.

ORDER :

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.239 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District and quash the same as against the petitioner.

This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.239 of 2012, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrates, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

2. According to the petitioner, on 12.08.2012, the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in Sethu Express to Chennai with II class unreserved ticket by entering into III tier AC coach to ask the ticket examiner to provide a berth. The ticket examiner has not accepted his request and thereby there was wordy quarrel between them. The said incident was taken place when the train reached Paramakudi Railway Station. In fact the ticket examiner for the purpose of accommodating the petitioner into AC coach has demanded illegal gratification but the petitioner was not willing to pay excess amount to the ticket examiner. Hence, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the ticket examiner. Thereafter, the ticket examiner passed on the message to the respondent and registered a case in Crime No.403 of 2012 under Sections 155 and 146 of Indian Railways Act, 1989. Thereafter, the respondent filed a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court for taking cognizance and the same was also taken on file as C.C.No.239 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, Sivagangai. The respondent before while filing the charge sheet, has not followed Section 180A and 180B of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, which mandates the Officer authorised has to necessarily commission of offence by way of holding inquiry. Even according to the averments, the ingredients of Sections 146 and 155 of Indian Railways Act was not attracted and the respondent exceeded their limits and violated the mandatory procedure. The respondent has no authority to file charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

3. No counter was filed by the respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and when he was travelling in train with II class ticket in the III tier AC coach towards Chennai, the ticket examiner examined the ticket of the petitioner and then the petitioner requested the ticket examiner to provide a berth by accommodating the petitioner to AC coach but the ticket examiner did not accessed the request of the petitioner and thereby, there were some wordy quarrel between them. The ticket examiner without even levying of necessary fine as per Rules he gone to the extent of lodging a criminal complaint. Further the respondent has no authority to file charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. But in this case, the respondent has filed charge sheet before the Magistrate Court on 19.10.2012.

5. According to Section 8(1) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, the Officer of Railway Protection Force is not empowered with the powers of an Officer in-charge making an investigation and he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing charge sheet before the Magistrate Court. Therefore, there are procedure violation, which cause miscarriage of justice. Hence, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has represented that there is no procedure violations in this case. The petitioner travelled in III tier AC coach without having proper ticket and he got ticket for II class and thereby, the ticket examiner asked the petitioner to get down from the AC coach but the petitioner developed wordy quarrel with the ticket examiner and thereby, he lodged complaint and after following the procedure, the report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Hence, this peti