Abraham vs The Sub Collector, Tuticorin

Janarthanam, J.—The Petitioner - Sub-Inspector of Police, Thattaparai Police Station is accused 1 in C.C. No. 407 of 1986 on the file of

the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin. Against him and two others, accused 2 and 3, who were constables attached to the said Police

Station, a private complaint had been preferred by the Respondent--Sub Collector, Tuticorin for alleged of fences under Sections 177, 193 and

342 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and framed charges against accused 1 to 3 for offences under Sections 193, 218 and

342 I.P.C.

The circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are as follows: One Ganapathy Chettiar employed as a cook in the Senior Approved

School at Thattaparai was stated to have assaulted accused 2 Constable on 5.9.1984 in the immediate presence of accused 3 who happened to

witness the same, consequently, accused 2 preferred a complaint before accused 1 - Sub Inspector of Police, which was registered in Crime No.

74/84 and the subsequent investigation had been taken by the Inspector of Police. On completion of investigation a final report u/s 173 Code of

Criminal Procedure had been filed before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tuticorin, in the sense of referring the case as ''mistake of fact and

false''. Learned Magistrate accepted the report and closed the matter. Thereafter, the said Ganapathy Chettiar gave a petition to the

Superintendent of the Senior Approved School, under whom he is working and he, in turn forwarded the same to the Collector, Tirunelveli for

enquiry. The Collector, in turn, sent the petition to the Respondent - Sub Collector for enquiry. The Sub-Collector, after making an enquiry, came

to the conclusion that a false case has been put up against this Ganapathy Chettiar and that he was wrongfully detained in the police station and

later released on bail. Consequently, he preferred a complaint as stated above.

On receipt of process, the Petitioner accused 1 alone had come forward with the present action, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court

to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the complaint tiled as such by the Sub Collector, Tuticorin is not at all

sustainable, on the face of the salient provisions adumbrated u/s 195, Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would

however repel such a submission.

The offence u/s 193 I.P.C. is falling within the ambit of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. In respect of any offence falling within that

section, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that

Court is subordinate. Sub section (3) of that section also defines the term ''Court'' according to which ''Court'' means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal

Court, and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a court for the purposes of

the said section.

The Sub Collector, Tuticorin, can, by no stretch of imagination whilst making an enquiry, be construed as a ''Court'' falling within the definition of

the ''Court'' as contemplated by the said sub-section. The complaint had been filed with the allegations constituting an offence u/s 193 I.P.C. as

well as other offences such as falling under Sections 218 and 342 I.P.C. The filing of such a complaint by the Respondent - Sub Collector.

Tuticorin is definitely hit by the provisions of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Even in respect of other offences, namely, under Sections 218 and 342 I.P.C. in respect of which charges had been framed by the Court below,

the materials on record would point out that those charges are not sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not as if the said

Ganapathy Chettiar had been arrested by the Petitioner-accused 1 without any sort of an accusation constituting a cognizable offence against him.

The arrest and his subsequent release on bail on his own bond in the police station is perfectly well within the bounds of law.

So far as the other section, namely, Section 218 I.P.C. is concerned, there is no question of making any incorrect record by the Petitioner. He

had simply registered the complaint as given by accused 2. As such, the charges under Sections 218 and 342 I.P.C. are not sustainable by the

materials available on record.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed.

It is to be noted here that the Constables, accused 2 and 3 had not come forward with a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings as

against them. The fact that those two Constables had not come forward with such a petition cannot stand in the way of quashing the criminal

proceedings initiated against them on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is travesty of justice for those Constables to face the

ordeal of trial before the criminal Court. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to quash the criminal proceedings against them also.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against all the accused, namely, accused 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 407 of

1986 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin shall stand quashed.