Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
The State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
Muneeswaran – Respondent
Criminal Procedure - Surrender of Accused - Cr.P.C Sections - Section 167(1), Section 167(2)
Fact of the Case:
Accused surrendered before a Magistrate without police custody after allegedly committing a murder. The surrender was accepted, and the accused were remanded under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, leading to a challenge by the State due to jurisdictional issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a Magistrate cannot accept the surrender and remand under Section 167(2) unless the accused was in police custody prior to the surrender, highlighting a systemic abuse by accused persons surrendering to evade arrest.
Issues: Whether a person can surrender to any Magistrate without being in police custody and whether such Magistrate can then remand them under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 167(2) presupposes that an accused must be forwarded by police under Section 167(1); thus, a voluntary surrender without prior police custody is not actionable under Section 167(2).
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside; the practice of surrendering to Magistrates having no jurisdiction was declared not maintainable.
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 matter at 10:30 am on 04.03.2024 seeking permission to challenge the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam in Cr.M.P 1519 of 2024. I had permitted the matter to be moved as a lunch motion on the said date and directed the Registry to call for the order. The impugned order reads as follows: The Petitioners are voluntarily surrender before this court. Copy of Aadhar Card produced. Identification of the accused are verified. On perusal of the copy of FIR produced by the petitioner in Cr.No.40/2024 registered on the file of Otteri Police Station, Tambaram, in coloumn No. 7 of the said FIR, it is mentioned as ghh;;j;jhy; milahsk; fhl;lf;Toa 6 egh;fs; he petitioners name were not reflected in FIR and when i enquired the same with the petitioners, the petitioners are represented that the police officials are searching them and they visited their respective homes and enquired the whereabout of the petitioners with the family members of the petitioners when their absence and filed the affidavit. Head Clerk of this court directed to check with the concern Police Station and Head Clerk make an enquiry with the S.I of Police Namely Mr.Ravikumar through his m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
