GUNASEKAR Vs. AMITHALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a private complaint under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondents for the offence under Sec. 166, 167, 294(b), 342 and 466 of IPC in Crl.M.P.No.1100 of 2020. The Trial Court by order dated 01.02.2021 dismissed the said petition. Against which, the present petition is filed.

(2.) The petitioner is an agriculturist and former Ward Member and presently his wife is a Ward Member. The petitioner used to represent for the welfare of the Villagers. During March 2020, there was a lock down and total ban for movement of people due to Corona Pandemic, at that time, on 23/4/2020 the Police received information about blending and sale of illicit arrack. The respondents along with one Mr.Senthil Rajamohan, Inspector of Police conducted raid in the Village, at that time, the respondents arrested one Nijandhan from the adjoining field, which was informed to the petitioner by the said Nijandhan's father and the petitioner questioned the Police and the petitioner was abused using filthy language and the petitioner protested and informed that he is going to file defamation case and also make representation to the Human Rights Commission about the act of the respondents. On 27/4/2020 at about 7.00 a.m., the Rural Police, Attur took the petitioner to the Police Station for enquiry, at the same time, ten rowdy elements entered the petitioner's house, damaged the door, window and other properties and further, threatened the petitioner's wife, how dare the petitioner can question the Police and thereafter, left the petitioner's house. The petitioner lodged a complaint but no acknowledgement given. The petitioner lodged a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police followed by a complaint through online to the Director General of Police on 29/4/2020 and the petitioner received acknowledgement through Whatsapp. On 29/4/2020, the petitioner's wife was enquired and based on her statement, a case in Crime No.184 of 2020 against one Chinnavan and ten others registered. The petitioner sent representation to the District Collector, Chief Secretary, Chief Minister's Cell and various authorities, further the incident was also reported in the daily newspaper.

(3.) On 14/5/2020 one Gopi, brother of Chinnavan @ Tamilalagan lodged a complaint against the petitioner and a case in Crime No.210 of 2020 registered for the offence under Secs. 294(b), 353 and 506(i) IPC. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. When the petitioner was in prison, a complaint was received from one Krishnan and a case in Crime No.218 of 2020 registered against the petitioner for offence under Secs. 294(b), 323, 447 and 506(ii) IPC. Again on 21.05.2020 based on the complaint given by one Anbalagan, Forest Range Officer, Attur, a case in Crime No.221 of 2020 registered against the petitioner for the offence under Secs. 143, 294(b), 323, 427, 447, 353 and Sec. 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act [TNPPDL Act]. The respondents and the Forest Rang Officer abusing their official power, registered cases against the petitioner and he was in confinement for more than 29 days. Thereafter, the petitioner caused a RTI application to the Forest Department seeking the nature of the complaint in Crime No.221 of 2020, the petitioner received a reply informing that no such complaint was given by the Forest Department which would clearly show that the respondents fabricated a false complaint against the petitioner and he was arrested. Hence, the petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents for the offence under Secs. 166, 167, 294(b), 342 and 466 of IPC, the petitioner sworn statement recorded and Nijandhan, the neighbour examined as witness No.2 and one Prabhu as witness No.3. The Trial Court recorded the statement of witnesses and held that the case in Crime No.210 of 2020, Crime No.218 of 2020 and Crime No.221 of 2020 are all in the stage of investigation and only after conclusion of investigation, it can be decided whether a false case has been registered and hence, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. Against which, the present revision.