S JOTHILINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are seeking for quashing the proceedings in crime No. 762 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Erode. The case of the petitioners is that the 9th petitioner is the Manager of'daily thanthi', a Tamil daily newspaper having wide circulation in Tamil Nadu.'dinamalar'is another Tamil daily newspaper also published from five centres at various places in Tamil Nadu. In the Sunday Supplement issue of 'dinamalar'dated 11. 10. 1987, an article had been published under the heading-'tamils.'Do not sleep. It was an article criticising the weekly magazine'rani'the said article aimed at ridiculing the Founder of'dina Thanthi'the late Thiru Si. Pa. Athithanar, contained certain imputations on the founder, which were perse scurrillous. The said weekly magazine, viz.'rani'is in the habit of calling its Founder as'the Father of the Tamils', 'do the respectable five crores of Tamils have one father" Does it not sound obscene"'The imputations so made against the Founder thus imply that one cannot be a father of five crores of Tamil people, therefore, no respectable Tamilians out of five crores can accept this. Since'daily Thanthi'had no centre at erode, the 9th petitioner along with 13 other staff members on 15. 10. 1987 proceeded to Erode from Coimbatore so as to present a similar memorandum of protest seeking apology from'dinamalar'at Erode. At that time, the Editor of'dinamalar'Mr. Sathyamoorthy shouted at his workers to attack the petitioner's workers. The employees of 'dinamalar'and other rowdy elements present there attacked and started beating indiscriminatedly with lethal weapons. In that incident some of the Daily Thanthi'workers were seriously injured some were admitted into the hospital and others had to take first aid treatment and besides, vehicles were also damaged. A policeman was also injured. Immediately they gave a complaint. To the Shock and Surprise, at the instance of'dinamalar' a First Information Report containing false and baseless charges were got registered against the petitioners in Crime No. 762 of 1987 under Sections 147,148,448,452,353,323,324,307, and 332 IPC. when the 9th petitioner was in the lock-up, he was forced to sign in some papers and the same have been made use in preparing a counter First Information Report, bearing Crime No. 763 of 1987, registered for offences under Sections 147, 323, 427 IPC. The 9th petitioner gave a private complaint under Sections 147, 223, 314,325,341,342,427,506 (1) 109 and 120 (1) IPC against the'dinamalar' employees and the same was numbered as Crl. M. P. No. 2437 of 1987. The said private complaint was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Crl. P. C. In that complaint twenty witnesses were cited. The learned Magistrate directed the Crime Branch C. I. D. to enquire into and investigate the said Crl. M. P. No. 2437 of 1987 along with Crime No. 763 of 1987. But the police filed the Charge Sheet in Crime No. 762 of 1987 and referred the private complaint in Crl. M. P. No. 2437 of 1987 and also the Crime no. 763 of 1987.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is both the cases arise out of the same incident and the police have not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Madras police Standing orders viz. 588-A. it is also submitted that the police have not examined the witnesses mentioned in the private complaint and they have not complied with the procedure contemplated in the Police Standing orders. In these circumstances, petitioners submit that the impugned charge-sheet filed by the respondents in Crime No. 762 of 1987 is liable to be quashed since it is contrary to the provisions of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Madras police standing orders.