Manikandan and Others vs Jayaraman

Padmini Jesudurai, J.—The petitioners, who are A19 to A24 in C.C. No. 488 of 1986 pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Usilampatti, Madurai District, on a private complaint instituted by the respondent, invoke the inherent powers of this Court for

quashing the above proceedings in so far as they relate to them on the ground that continuance of the same amounts to abuse of the process of law.

Facts briefly are: On 9.7.1985 at about 12 Noon there was an incident in the garden of the respondent. With reference to that incident, the

respondent gave a complaint to the police, which was registered by them as Crl. No. 120 of 1983 for offences under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 336 and

324 I.P.C., as against 18 named persons. The police, after investigation, referred the case as ''mistake of fact''. Thereafter, the respondent filed the

private complaint in court adding not only the above 18 named per-sons, but also the petitioners herein, arrayed as Accused 19 to 24. The

complaint was presented in Court on 30.4.1986. Vague overt acts with reference to the petitioner, were made in the complaint. The petitioners

therefore, prayed that proceedings against them on the private complaint instituted by the respondent be quashed.

Thiru T. Sudanthiram, Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that merely to harass the petitioners they have been added in the private

complaint and interests of justice required that the proceedings be quashed against them. In the original complaint given by the respondent to the

police on the day of the occurrence allegations were made against 18 named persons and overt acts were attributed to them. There was no

allegation that besides those 15 named persons, any one else participated in the occurrence. While so, the petitioners have been shown in the

present complaint and certain baseless and vague overt acts have been attributed to them.

A perusal of the complaint given by the respondent to the police shows that the names of the petitioners are not mentioned therein. It is not even

stated that apart from 18 named persons, who are now accused 1 to 18 in the present private complaint, any one else took part in the occurrence.

In fact, the first petitioner is shown as one of the persons who sustained injuries. On the contrary in the private complaint that had been given nearly

five months after the above police complaint, the petitioners have been shown as having participated in the incident. The submission of the Learned

Counsel for the petitioners that allegations against the petitioners are vague is not without force. All that is stated about the first petitioner is that he

abetted A16 and A8. In what manner the abetment was; whether it was by instigation or by aid is not mentioned. Similarly, as against the second

petitioner it is merely stated that he abetted petitioners 3 to 6 to throw stones on the tiled building. It is not stated that petitioners 3 to 6 did really

throw stones on the tiled building. The manner of abutment by the second petitioner is not shown. It is, therefore, clear that allegations against the

present petitioners are flimsy and frivolous. The very fact that their names have not been mentioned in the complaint to the police and have been for

the first time introduced in the private complaint filed five months thereafter with vague allegations made against them shows that the present

petitioners have been merely roped in the case to harass them. It is also seen that the respondent is an accused in a case under S.302, I.P.C., in

which one of the persons belonging to the petitioners group was done to death on the very same day. Some of the petitioners herein figure as

prosecution witnesses in the charge sheet that has been filed against the respondent and his co-accused for the offence under S.302, I.P.C. The

private complaint has been filed long after police had filed chargesheet. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioners

have been added as accused in the case merely to prevent them from giving evidence in the murder case and to show them as witnesses interested

in the prosecution has much force. To allow continuance of the prosecution against the petitioners herein, therefore, is a clear abuse of the process

of law, which this Court, acting under its inherent powers is by duty bound to prevent it.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 488 of 1986 pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Usilampatti, are quashed so far as they relate to the petitioners herein are concerned.