S RAJANIKANTH Vs. C THIRUMAGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records connected to the order dated 08.02.2008 of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2008 on the file of the said court, set aside the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble may deem fit.

(2.) THE brief facts and circumstances under which the petition invoking the inherent powers of the High Court came to be filed are as follows: i) Two persons by names Thoufeek and Vetriveerapandian were arrested as a preventive measure by the Sub Inspector of Police, B2-Esplanade Police Station, Chennai on 12.01.2008 under Section 151 Cr.P.C r/w Section 7(1)(a) Criminal Law Amendment Act after registering a case in Crime No.19/2008 on the file of the said police station in view of the proposed visit of Thiru.Narendira Modi, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Gujarat on 14.01.2008. THEy were produced before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 13.01.2008 and were remanded to judicial custody by the said Metropolitan Magistrate. THE Gujarat Chief Minister came to Chennai on 14.01.2008 and returned safely on the very same day. Due to intervening pongal holidays, no bail application was moved till 21.01.2008. On 21.01.2008 a bail application was filed before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai as Crl.M.P.No.146/2008 in Crime No.19/2008 of B2 Esplanade Police Station. THE learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai adjourned the bail application to 24.01.2008. Hence a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.1257 of 2008 was filed on the file of this court, seeking a direction to the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai to dispose of the bail application immediately. A learned single judge of this court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jeyapal) passed an order on 22.01.2008 directing the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai to advance the hearing of the bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.146/2008 to 23.01.2008 and dispose of the same in accordance with law on the very same day. Pursuant to the said order of this court, the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate advanced the hearing of the bail petition Crl.M.P.No.146/2008 to 23.01.2008 from 24.01.2008. After hearing, the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order on 23.01.2008 dismissing the said petition. Pursuant to the dismissal of the said bail petition, a bail petition was moved before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.709/2008. THE learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, after hearing, passed an order on 25.01.2008 allowing the said petition and granting bail in the above said case with certain conditions. Thiruvalargal Sankarasubbu and Rajanikanth (the petitioner herein) and Ms.S.Sengodi were the counsel for the above said Thoufeek and Vetriveerapandian before the Principal Sessions Judge in the bail petition. After getting a copy of the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ms.S.Sengodi, one of the counsel on record for the accused persons in Crime No.19/2008 of B2 Esplanade Police Station, presented the same along with surety papers to the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on 28.01.2008. ii) THE respondent herein, who was the then VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town refused to take up the matter for verification of surety papers and insisted upon the presence of the petitioner Rajanikanth, who was also a counsel on record for the said accused persons. As the surety papers were not scrutinized till 4.30 p.m, the petitioner Rajani Kanth, after winding up his work in the High Court, went to the court of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Before that there was some altercation between Ms.S.Sengodi, advocate and the respondent herein as the said advocate alleged that the respondent used disrespectful and unparliamentary words against petitioner Rajani Kanth. On the arrival of the petitioner in the court of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, chennai again there was an altercation between the petitioner Rajani Kanth and the respondent herein, since the petitioner questioned the respondent as to the propriety of her addressing him singularly and with unparliamentary words. Pursuant to the same, alleging that at about 4.30 p.m on 28.01.2008, Rajani Kanth, the petitioner herein, had wantonly and intentionally insulted the second respondent using unparliamentary words and threatening that a private affidavit would be filed against her, the respondent herein, the then VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai decided to initiate criminal proceedings in a summary manner under Section 345(1) Cr.P.C against the petitioner herein for an offence punishable under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code and issued a show cause notice on 29.01.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2008 directing the petitioner to show cause within two days as to why he should not be punished under Section 345(1) Cr.P.C. According to the show cause notice he had committed an offence punishable under Section 228 IPC. iii) THE said show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 07.02.2008 at 10.30 a.m. Though 2 days time had been given to show cause, the suo motu criminal proceedings initiated in Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2008 was taken up for hearing on 08.02.2008 at 5.30 p.m itself. THE petitioner had not offered any explanation by then. He was also not present in the court on the above said date. THErefore, the respondent, who was the then VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, passed the impugned order dated 08.02.2008 convicting the petitioner Rajanikanth (advocate) under Section 345(1) Cr.P.C and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.75/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 days in case of default in payment of fine. THE said order passed by the respondent while she was functioning as the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is challenged invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE arguments advanced by Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj,learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Margabandhu, learned counsel for the respondent were heard. This court paid its anxious consideration to the same and also took into consideration the materials available on record.