2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 22491
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Order Reserved on: 19.09.2023 Order Delivered on: .10.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10994 of 2021 and Crl.MP.(MD).Nos.5607 &5608 of 2021 Thavakannan ...Petitioner Vs
1.The Inspector of Police, A.Mukkulam Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
2.Manikandan-The Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Mukkulam Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.227 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanithi For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel ****
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.227 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same.
2.According to the petitioner, he completed Diploma in Electornics and Electrical Engineering and has been waiting for employment. He also applied for Passport with the Passport Office and awaiting for verification by police. In the mean time, on 20.03.2020, he received a call from A.Mukkulam Police Station to attend the passport verification, on 21.03.2020 and on the said date, he accompanied with his relative one Sivasubramaniam S/o.Karuppusamy and went to A.Mukkulam Police Station at about 10.00 a.m.,. At that time, he was asked to wait for 30 minutes as concerned Sub-Inspector of police was not available. After arrival of Sub-Inspector, his verification process was completed and he along with his relative Sivasubramaniam, left from the Police Station and returned back to their home at about 2.00 p.m., (ii) While so, on the same day i.e., 21.03.2020, at about 4.00 p.m., one Ramprasad, a prominent member of the Society and Ex-President of the Co- operative Society had asked the petitioner to visit his farmhouse. When the petitioner visited the farm house, the said Ramprasad informed that while the
5th respondent had visited him in the farm house, it was alleged by him that his walkie-talkie was stolen by the petitioner. For that, the petitioner replied that he did not take the walkie-talkie.
(iii) Thereafter, the 2nd respondent forced the petitioner to come to A.Mukkulam Police Station. Accordingly, the petitioner reached A.Mukkulam Police Station, where, the 2nd respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police abused, manhandled and assaulted him in a black and blue manner.
(iv) At that time of beating, the 2nd respondent asked the petitioner to admit the stealing of walki-talkie, but the petitioner refused, thereby, the 2nd respondent again beaten the petitioner. Due to the assault made by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner sustained injuries and went to Virudhunagar Government Hospital and had taken first aid and then he was referred to Madurai, Rajaji Government Hospital for further treatment.
(v) In order to escape from the clutches of law, the 2nd respondent, after knowing that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2020 dated 21.03.2020 for the offences under sections 294(b), 427 & 353 of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner had given a complaint to the higher authorities regarding the torture made by the 2nd respondent but no action was taken and therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 6540 of 2020 and the same is also pending. The registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet in C.C.No.227 of 2021 against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, he filed this petition to quash the above said CC proceedings.
3. No counter was filed by the respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had applied for Passport in the passport office, for that, the 2nd respondent asked the petitioner to attend verification. Accordingly, on 21.03.2020, he went to A.Mukkulam Police Station and after verification process, he returned back to his home. On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m., the police called the petitioner through one Ramprasad and then asked about the missing walkie-talkie, for that, the petitioner replied that he don't know anything about the walkie-talkie.
(ii) Thereafter, the 2nd respondent police compelled him to come to A.Mukkulam Police Station and the petitioner also went to A.Mukkulam Police Station, where, the 2nd respondent made allegations that the petitioner had stolen the walkie-talkie. Infact the walkie-talkie was misplaced by the 2nd respondent and thereafter, it was found in the room of the 2nd respondent. In the mean time, the 2nd respondent assaulted the petitioner in a black and blue manner to admit that he onl