M. Sridaran vs Aranthai Annadurai

V.S. Ravi, J.—This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner/A3 to call for the records relating to the PRC No. 16/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi and quash the same.

The petitioner has stated in the petition that the impugned complaint lodged by the first respondent is not maintainable, insofar as the petitioner is concerned and the impugned complaint will not come within the purview of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Further, the petitioner has stated that the allegations set out in the impugned complaint do not make out a case attracting the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Court.

The pertinent point that arises for consideration in this criminal original petition is as follows:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled to get an order to quash proceedings initiated by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, in P.R.C. No. 16 of 2007 for the reasons stated in the petition?

The petitioner himself has enclosed a copy of the complaint filed by the complainant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi. Further, along with the present petition, the petitioner has enclosed the copy of summons issued to the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, with regard to the case in P.R.C. No. 16 of 2007. Further, the petitioner himself has admitted in the petition that the petitioner has appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, and the next date of hearing has been fixed on 15.03.2008. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed the present criminal original petition on 13.03.2008, challenging the proceedings initiated in P.R.C. No. 16 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.

The petitioner has specifically stated that he has acted in strict discharge of his duties as Break Inspector in the office of the Regional Transport Office in Pudukottai and the allegations set out in the impugned complaint do not make out a case attracting the jurisdiction of Human Rights Court.

Certainly, it is left open to the petitioner herein to put forth the said contentions before the Court of Judicial Magistrate and also to get an appropriate orders in accordance with law. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in the following category of cases:

to give effect to an order under the Code;

to prevent abuse of the process of Court; and

to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Further, on a thorough verification of the entire records in the present case, it is found that inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate proceedings taken by the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Further, it is not possible to conclude that the complaint lodged by the complainant do not constitute any offence against the petitioner herein. The Honourable Apex Court time and again has observed that the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. Courts have consistently taken the view that they must use the Court''s extraordinary power only to prevent injustice and secure ends of justice. Certainly, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, has to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. This Court is not finding any sound principles to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi. It is not possible to quash the complaint lodged by the complainant at the threshold before evidences are let in support of the complaint.

The legal position is that the High Court should exercise inherent powers with utmost care and in exercise of inherent powers, proper scrutiny of facts concerned are absolutely necessary. It is a question of trial to see that whether any violation of human rights has been committed. The said act has to be inferred from the evidence and records to be adduced by the complainant. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and carefully with great caution and such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.

On a careful perusal of the entire records of the case, and also the proceedings initiated by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi in P.R.C. No. 16 of 2007, the only conclusion that can be arrived at by this Court is to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi independently to deal with the complaint lodged by the complainant in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both parties to put forth their contentions. The petitioner herein has not established sufficient reasons to quash the proceedings initiated by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, in P.R.C. No. 16 of 2007.

It is a matter on evidence and proof for the concerned Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. It is open to the complainant to prove at trial by producing appropriate records and evidence. The High Court could not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi in P.R.C. No. 16 of 2007 at premature stage of issuance of process. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi has to deal with the issues before the concerned Court in a passionate manner, as otherwise the decision making process may not be on a right path. Further, the proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi is at the threshold stage only. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case for interfering with the proceedings initiated by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.

Further the object and reasons for enactment of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is for the reason that there has been growing concern in the country and abroad about issues relating to human rights. Having regard to this, changing social realities and the emerging trends in the nature of crime and violence, Government have been reviewing the existing law, procedures and system of administration of justice, with a view to bringing about greater accountability and transparency in them, and devising, efficient and effective methods of dealing with the situation.

Certainly, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, is clothed with power to pass such orders, as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. Further, it is seen that there is no flagrant abuse of process of law. The High Court cannot enter into the merits of the case and pronounce upon the truth and correctness of the complaint filed by the complainant, at this stage. Further, it is seen that the complainant should be afforded sufficient opportunity to adduce all available evidence and records to arrive at a conclusion and mutually so in case of petitioner herein. This Court cannot arrive at a conclusion on the basis of material on record at a stage prior to leading of evidence by the complainant.

For the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and also to do complete justice to all the parties concerned, it is seen that the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, has to be directed to consider the matter in accordance with law and in its proper perspective.

In the result, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi is hereby directed to examine in detail all the material records and documents that would be furnished by both parties and to continue with the further proceedings in P.R.C. No. 16 of 2007 and dispose of the matter, independently, after giving opportunity to both sides to put forth their contentions. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the matter. It is also made clear that it is open to both parties to contest the matter, effectively, in accordance with law before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, as the petitioner herein has clearly mentioned the case, relating to P.R.C. No. 16/2007. This Court is sure that the further proceedings will be done properly and diligently by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi. Further, both the parties are directed to cooperate with the Lower Court for early disposal. The Registry is directed to send the records to the Lower Court, forthwith. The criminal original petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.