K. ANANDAN Vs. K. MANOHARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is presently the Superintendent of Prisons in Central Prison, Coimbatore. One Mr.Chandran, S/o.Karuppannan, who was an accused in Crime No.35 of 2014 on the file of Valparai Police Station in Coimbatore District was remanded to judicial custody by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valparai on 20.06.2014 as an under trial prisoner. On the same day, he was lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore. His remand was thereafter periodically extended till 11.09.2014. On 11.09.2014, Mr.Chandran was duly produced before the learned Magistrate and after supplying the copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., when Mr.Chandran was questioned, he admitted the offence and the case was adjourned to 16.09.2014 for judgment. Mr.Chandran was, then, remanded to judicial custody till 16.09.2014. On 16.09.2014, however, the petitioner herein did not cause Mr.Chandran to be produced before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valparai on the expiry of the remand period. There was no intimation from the petitioner to the Court, explaining the reason as to why he could not produce the accused.

(2.) On the same day, the learned Magistrate issued a show cause notice under letter No.6 of 2014 calling upon the petitioner herein to show cause on 24.09.2014 as to why action should not be taken against him for his failure to cause production of Mr.Chandran before the learned Magistrate on 16.09.2014. But the petitioner did not appear before the Magistrate on 24.09.2014, instead, he had sent a letter in Letter No.17130/R3/2014 dated 22.09.2014, wherein he had informed the learned Magistrate that for the period between 16.09.2014 and 30.09.2014, the remand of Mr.Chandran was extended by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore through video linkage as directed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. The learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the said explanation. No document pertaining to the extension of remand from 16.09.2014 was also produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner informed the learned Magistrate that in the warrant of remand, it had been recorded that the remand was extended. According to the learned Magistrate, this act of the petitioner, failing to cause production of Mr.Chandran before the Court on 16.09.2014 amounts to offence punishable under Section 166 I.P.C.

(3.) An Assistant by name K.Manoharan, the first respondent herein, who is working in the said Court filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the said private complaint and issued summons to the petitioner. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this petition, seeking to quash the said criminal proceedings. During the course of the present proceedings, the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Home Secretary was impleaded as second respondent.