S. Masilamani vs Dr. M. Karunanidhi and K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran

P.N. Prakash, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a practising advocate and is interested in the development of his locality. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar for the alleged offences under Sections 107, 108, 117, 171G, 425, 505(i)(b) and 415 of I.P.C.

The crux of the case of the complainant is that the respondents herein were in power during the year 2008 and at that time they had sanctioned a Railway Over Bridge in Virudhunagar for a total sum of Rs. 20.53 crores. While so, after the new Government came to power, these respondents made a ''U'' turn and started acting in the manner prejudicial to the construction of the over bridge. Aggrieved by that, the complainant has filed the above complaint alleging the aforesaid offence against them.

The learned Magistrate took the case on file and examined the complainant as P.W. 1. By a considered order dated 21.10.2013, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. Aggrieved by which, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

This Court perused the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has thoroughly discussed the evidence adduced by P.W. 1 and has given the following findings:

Thus, the matter with regard to construction of Railway Over Bridge or Under Bridge is pending before the Honourable High Court, Madurai Bench. The complainant who is a practising advocate has argued by reading the commentaries relating to Article 162 that succeeding government was duty bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job which were announced during previous government. As stated above, the matter relating to construction work of Railway Over Bridge is under the consideration of Honourable High Court in the Writ Petitions. The State government and Railway Department are parties to the Writ Petitions and it is for them to supply the real facts to the Honourable High Court with regard to construction of Railway Over Bridge.

The complaint has alleged that the respondents are liable to be punished u/s 171G as they are giving false statement that they would win all seats in parliament election. Section 171G IPC is relating to false statement in respect of personal character and conduct of any candidate contesting in the Election. Further, the complaint does not disclose necessary ingredients to constitute the offences under sections 107, 108, 117, 171G, 425, 505(i)(b) and 415 IPC.

This Court is in total agreement with the finding of the learned Magistrate. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Sections 415 and 505 of I.P.C. and contended that the respondents have deceived the people. A bare reading of Section 415 of I.P.C. shows that it would apply to the case, where the accused had made the complainant to part with any property by practising deception. Similarly, Section 505 of I.P.C. relates to speeches and statements, which are likely to incite the people to violence. In this case, both the ingredients are not present. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any infirmity and hence, the same is confirmed and the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.