KANNAN Vs. S.M. NOOR MOHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.147 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram.

(2.) The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner on the ground that while the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police in the District Crime Branch he had registered several cases against the respondent and arrested the respondent at his house. At the time of arrest, the petitioner seized valuable articles from the respondent's house and it was not produced before the Court and thereby the petitioner had taken away the articles. The respondent has further stated in the complaint that the petitioner had intentionally detained the respondent under the Goondas Act and the same was revoked subsequently by the Advisory Board and several other cases filed against the respondent were also quashed by the High Court. While so, on 203.2012 the respondent went to the Court at Ramanathapuram to meet his Advocate to discuss about a case and at about 1.30 pm, in front of the Magistrate Court, the petitioner abused the respondent to the effect that the death of the respondent will only be in the hands of the petitioner and the respondent cannot escape from being shot by the petitioner with his revolver. The respondent hearing these words alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner, went into the Court out of fear. This incident resulted in filing of the private complaint by the respondent against the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate -II, Ramanthapuram took cognizance of the complaint for an offence under Sec. 307 of Penal Code and also issued summons to the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate before issuance of the summons, had examined the respondent and four other witnesses.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is a habitual criminal, who is involved in several crimes. He has also produced a list of seven cases in which, the respondent is the main accused. It is because of the fact that the respondent is a habitual offender, he was detained under Act 14 of 1982.