Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Tambaram – Petitioner
Versus
Muneeswaran and Others – Respondents
CRL.O.P No. 5577 of 2024 & Crl.MP. Nos. 4077 & 4078 of 2024
Decided On : 08-03-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K.M.D. Muhilan, Government Advocate, Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Public Prosecutor Asst.by M. Leonand, Joseph Selvam, Advocates.

Voluntary surrender before a Magistrate lacking jurisdiction is not maintainable under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, requiring police custody to process remand.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 167(1) and 167(2) - Jurisdiction of Magistrates - Accused voluntarily surrendering before a Magistrate not having jurisdiction cannot be dealt with under Section 167(2) - The practice of notorious criminals misusing surrender petitions to avoid police custody is discouraged. (Paras 39, 40)

(B) Criminal Justice System - Effective investigation cannot be compromised by accepting surrenders in absence of police forwarding - Remand can only follow upon police custody as per law. (Paras 10, 36, 39)

Facts of the case:
The State challenged the acceptance of surrenders of accused persons in a murder case by a Magistrate lacking territorial jurisdiction, assessing the legal implications of such surrenders.

Findings of Court:
The order of remand was found not maintainable due to lack of compliance with statutory requisites regarding surrender.

Issues: Can the accused surrender before a Magistrate lacking jurisdiction? Is such surrender valid under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C?

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that surrendering without police custody violates procedural requirements under Section 167 Cr.P.C.; the jurisdictional authority must be upheld in ensuring justice.

Result: The petition was disposed of with directions against the practice and guidelines issued.

Table of Content
1. criminal petition's basis (Para 1 , 2)
2. issues with surrender and jurisdiction (Para 3 , 4)
3. reflections on criminal justice practice (Para 5 , 6)
4. jurisdictional considerations in surrender (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. historical context of jurisdiction (Para 10 , 11)
6. authority of magistrates in remand (Para 12 , 13)
7. supreme court's clarifications on remand procedures (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
8. independent principles and judicial custody (Para 17 , 18)
9. challenges in judicial remand (Para 19 , 20)
10. statutory requirements for remand decisions (Para 21 , 22)
11. consequences of illegal remand requests (Para 23 , 24)
12. legal precedents impacting current case (Para 25 , 26)
13. clarifications on arrest and custody (Para 27 , 28)
14. relevant legal context of arrest (Para 29 , 30)
15. final directions and clarifications (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
16. specified guidelines and expectations (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
17. final rulings and legal precedent (Para 38 , 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , to call for the records and quash the order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.1519 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam.)

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed at the instance of the State calling into question an order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam in Crl.M.P.No.1519 of 2024 accepting the surrender of four accused persons and remanding them to judicial custody under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C till 06.03.2024.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:

a. A gory incident took place on 29.2.2024, wherein the Deputy Chairman of Kattankulathur Panchayat Union was waylaid by six persons and brutally murdered, with the arms and legs of the deceased being chopped off. The accused persons also hurled a country bomb in the car in which the deceased was travelling causing extensive damage to the vehicle. It appears that these six persons had fled the scene thereafter. Mr. Jinnah, the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased was brought dead on the same day before the Chromepet Government Hospital.

b. On a complaint given by one Sathyanarayanan, a case in Otteri PS Crime No 40 of 2024 was registered by the Tambaram Police on 29.02.2024 for the offences under Section 147 ,148,302 IPC, Section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that he has witnessed the occurrence and can identify the 6 accused persons. Since the complaint did not disclose the names of the assailants, in Column No 7 of the FIR it is mentioned as “Six identifiable persons”.

c. On 01.03.2024, five persons surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam and out of those five, one was a juvenile, aged about 17 years. It is not in dispute that the Sathyamangalam Magistrate Court falls within the Erode Sessions Division whereas the murder had taken place in Chromepet which is under the jurisdiction of the Chengalpet Sessions Division. It was also brought to my notice by Mr. Jinnah, learned State Public Prosecutor that four more persons had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Srivilluputhur, in Virudhunagar District in connection with the said crime. Their surrender petition was accepted pursuant to which they were remanded to judicial custody. The juvenile (A5) was entrusted to the custody of two police constables with a further direction to produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board. A5 has, thereafter, been lodged in the observation home at Kellys, Kilpauk, Chennai.

d. The jurisdictional police station ie., the Tambaram Police had no clue about these developments. It is stated that the Tambaram Police had learnt of the surrender and subsequent developments from the newspapers.

3. Given the aforesaid developments, the State Public Prosecutor had urgently mentioned the