Sudalaiyandi and another vs S. Gnana Chandra Singh

Pratap Singh, J.—The accused in C.C.No.30 of 1990 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, have filed this petition under S.

482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same.

The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioners in C.C.No.30 of 1990 (C.C. 30 of 1990). The allegations in it are briefly as

follows:- On 26.11.1989, at 4:30 p.m. he went to Nagercoil. After meeting certain persons, he was returning by bus at 10:15 p.m. while the bus

was stopped at Rajakkamangalam Junction, the third accused boarded the bus and questioned the complainant about his name and he replied he is

the same person. Immediately, he asked to get down from the bus and abused, him with filthy words. When he asked him as to why he asked him

to get down the bus, he said that the Inspector of Police had called him and so saying, he lifted him by pulling his collar along with the other two

constables, and he pushed him from the bus. Then the third accused pulled his hair and beat him on his neck and back. The other two constables

also beat him repeatedly. The first accused, beat him with the lathi stick on his leg, hand and other parts of the body and caused injuries. All the

accused beat him indiscriminately. With the result, his dhothi fell down and he lost his personal belongings. Even thereafter, the second accused

beat him indiscriminately with a stick and consequently he fell down. Then, he was taken to the office of the second accused. When he asked the

Inspector and Sub Inspector as to why he was beaten, then again he was beaten and abused with most vulgar words and he was put inside the

lock up. On the next day, his wife came to the Police Station to see him. The second accuse refused to give permission. At 9.00 a.m. one Mr.

Paramadas came to the Police Station and sought permission. The second accused again refused to give permission. After 9:45 p.m. he was taken

to the house of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 and was kept outside. The second and third accused went inside the Magistrate''s house and then took

him to the Government Hospital and admitted him. He was admitted as an in-patient and took treatment from 27.11.1989 to 1.12.1989. He is a

respectable person. He was abused by the accused in a junction of public roads. That was seen and heard by one Mr. Joseph and others. By their

acts, the accused damaged his reputation. In view of the above they are liable to be punished under Ss. 341, 343, 452 and 500, IPC. To quash

the above complaint, the present petition has been filed,

Mr. R. Subramanyam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the accused are police personnel, that even in the

complaint it is stated that complainant was produced before learned Magistrate and then taken to the hospital and that would show that the

petitioners had indulged in these acts in discharge of their official duty and that this occurrence was on 26.11.1989 and this complaint was made on

25.5. 1990 and in view of S. 53 of the Tamil Nadu Police Act, there is a limitation of three months from the date of occurrence and this complaint

having been filed beyond the period of three months is liable to be quashed.

I have heard Mr. Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the above aspects.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel. In The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Venugopal and Others, , the

Apex Court had occasion to consider S. 53 of Madras District Police Act, 1859 and had held that the prosecution of the accused was not barred

by limitation under S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act, 1959. The Apex Court has further pointed out that there is no provision of law

authorising police officer to beat a person and in that case the act of beating was alleged to have been done when they were engaged in

investigation and that there could be no reasonable connection between those acts and the process of investigation. The acts, complained of, could

not be said to have been done or intended to be done under any provision of the Madras District Police Act of the Code of Criminal Procedure or

any other law, conferring powers on the police, and consequently, S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act had no application in that case. The

facts alleged in the impugned complaint are similar. This ruling would apply squarely to the facts of this case. Hence 1 am clear that the submission

made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. No other ground was urged before me. Hence this petition shall stand dismissed.