P.Ganesan v. The Inspector of Police

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner as against the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.417 of 2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and set aside the same.

¶2The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.745 of 2015 and he is said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C., and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of open place (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act.

¶3According to the prosecution, there is a poster was pasted on the barricade installed by the police department. In the poster, the following allegations are printed: ehd; jpz;Lf;fy; efh; tlf;Ffhty; epiyapy; rpwg;g[ rhh;g[ Ma;thsuhfgzpg[hpe;JtUfpnwd;/ehDk; vd;Dld; gzpg[hpa[k; K/ep/fh/650 Tr.tp$a; fz;zd; vd;gtUk; rhh;g[

Ma;thsh; Tr.ehc&ph;

ghl;rhmth;fSld; 30/06/2016k; njjp 04/30 kzpf;FFw;wk; vJt[k; elf;fhky;

,Uf;fjpz;Lf;fy; g!; !;lhz;LmUfpYs;sAMC nuhl;oy; ,Uf;Fk; MGR rpiymUnfa[s;snghyp!; g{j; vjpnu ,Uf;Fk; nghyp!;

jLg;g[

ntyp

(nghpfhL)?y; vt;tpjmuRmDkjp

,y;yhky;

g/fnzrd;. S/o.gHdpag;gd;. 25 jpUr;rprhiy. ahjtnl;Luh $hf;fhgl;o.

jpz;Lf;fy;

ehk;

jkpHh; fl;rpkhtl;lxU';fpizg;ghsh;

vd;gth; tPH;e;JtplhjtPuk;. kz;oaplhjkhdk; fz;of;fpnwhk;/ Myr;rpgl;oapy;

jpUl;Lnghdnjrpaj;jiyth; nkjFnt/gpughfud;

mth;fspd;

bgah; gjhifiakPl;Lj; juf;nfhhp g[fhh; mspf;fbrd;wehk; jkpHh;

fl;rpeph;thfpfisjfhjthh;j;ijfshy; jpl;omtkhdg;gLj;jpajhf ,Ue;jRtbuhl;oianghf;F tuj;ijrhpbra;tjw;fhfitf;fg;gl;oUe;jfhty;Jiwj Lg;g[ ntypapy; xl;oaij g[ifg;glk; vLj;Jk; epiyak; te;Jep/F/vz;/ 745/15, U/s.188 IPC and 4 of TN prevention

of

open

place

Disfigurement

Act-d;gotHf;Fgjpt[ bra;acjtpahf ,Ue;njhk;/ jh';fs; vd;idtprhhpf;fele;jtpguk; brhd;ndd;/

¶4The investigating agency, after the registration of the case filed a final report and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.417 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. To quash the same, the petitioner filed this petition.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registration of the case for the offence under Section 188 of IPC., is not maintainable as per the judgment of this Court reported in 2018 LW(cri) 606 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7977 of 2019. So far as the offence under Sections 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of open place (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act is concerned, the learned counsel has placed the unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12165 of 2021. He would further submit that the investigating agency has collected lot of materials. None of the material disclosed that the petitioner pasted the poster on the barricade installed by the police department and it is the basic requirement to constitute the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of open place (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act. In the absence of the said basic facts, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶6The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions, submitted that the prosecution collected materials to show that the poster was affixed with the name of the respondent as a District coordinator, which itself showed that they pasted the poster. Hence, he seeks for dismissal.

¶7This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶8This Court perused the records and also the materials collected by the investigating agency and the specific allegation in the FIR.

¶9To constitute the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of open place (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, it is the duty of the investigatin agency to collect the material to show that the petitioner only pasted the offensive poster in the open place. But, in this case, this Court finds no material from the record to show that the petitioner pasted the offensive material in the open place. In similar circumstance, this Court quashed the proceedings in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.15089 of 2019 and 12165 of 2021. Therefore, the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of open place (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act is not made out.

¶10The prosecution under Section 188 of IPC is not maintainable on the basis of the registration of the FIR, by the investigating agency. This Court in the cases reported in 2018 LW(cri) 606 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7977 of 2019, has quashed the proceedings on that ground alone. Therefore, this Court has no reason to differ with the said precedent.

¶11In view of the above, this Court finds that the proceeding in C.C.No. 417 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul initiated as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

17.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sbn To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town North Police Station, Dindigul.

¶3The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. sbn Crl.O.P(MD).No.

14838

of 2020

and Cr.M.P.(MD).Nos.7052 and 7053 of 2020

17.11.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 17.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.O.P(MD).No. 14838 of 2020 and Cr.M.P.(MD).Nos.7052 and 7053 of 2020 P.Ganesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town North Police Station, Dindigul. (Crime No.745 of 2015) 2. Nazheer Batcha, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town North Police Station, Dindigul. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for records in respect of C.C.No.417 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R1