Skip to content


S. Rajasekaran and Others Vs. State Rep. by Special Sub-Inspector of Police - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCrl.R.C.Nos. 1145 to 1149 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos. 10032 to 10041 & 9861 of 2016
Judge
AppellantS. Rajasekaran and Others
RespondentState Rep. by Special Sub-Inspector of Police
Excerpt:
.....the special sub-inspector of police, e-9-thazhambur police station conducted the prosecution and filed charge sheet on 21.07.2012 before the learned judicial magistrate no.i, chengalpattu. even though it was stated by the special sub-inspector of police that the charge sheet was filed on 21.07.2012, the same was received by the court on 02.12.2014. hence, there was a huge delay in preparing the charge sheet and filing the same before the court. 4. the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners finally contended that in this case, investigation was conducted by the special sub-inspector of police and he is not duly authorised to conduct the investigation and he is not entitled to file charge sheet for the cognizance offence. the senior counsel for the petitioners has also.....
Judgment:

(Prayer in all Crl.R.Cs.: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 19.09.2016 passed in C.M.P.Nos.3314, 3318, 3315, 3316 and 3317 of 2015 respectively in C.C.No.409 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpet, dismissing the petition filed for the discharge of the petitioners.)

Common Order

1. These Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpet, in C.M.P.Nos.3314, 3318, 3315, 3316 and 3317 of 2015 respectively in C.C.No.409 of 2014, dismissing the petitions filed for the discharge of the petitioners.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would mainly contend that the learned Magistrate, without perusing the documents produced on the side of the petitioners and the relevant records, erroneously dismissed the petitions filed by the present petitioners for discharge. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider the fact that the Special Sub3 Inspector of Police has no power to file a charge sheet in cognizable offence under Cr.P.C. Further, on a perusal of F.I.R. reveals that there are four persons involved in the crime, but in the charge sheet, it was stated as five persons. Hence, there are so many contradictions about mentioning of the number of the accused by the prosecution. It is also contended that the date of occurrence and the time of occurrence also differs as per the prosecution records. Further, in this case, on a perusal of records, it is seen that the F.I.R. was registered on 31.03.2013, but it was sent to Court on 09.04.2012, which is patently error on the side of the prosecution. Even though in the medical records also, there are so many discrepancies, the trial Court, without looking into the matter, erroneously dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners. Hence, the complaint and the scene of occurrence are doubtful. In view of the above circumstances, the trial Court ought to have allowed the discharge petitions filed by the present petitioners, but erroneously dismissed the same. Hence, the order of the trial Court has to be set aside and the criminal revision cases have to be allowed and the accused have to be discharged.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended that in this case, the charge sheet was filed only in the year 2014, but it was wrongly represented on the side of the prosecution that the charge sheet was filed in the year 2012 itself and hence, there was huge delay in filing the charge sheet. It is also contended that on reading of the charge sheet reveals that the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, E-9-Thazhambur police station conducted the prosecution and filed charge sheet on 21.07.2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu. Even though it was stated by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police that the charge sheet was filed on 21.07.2012, the same was received by the Court on 02.12.2014. Hence, there was a huge delay in preparing the charge sheet and filing the same before the Court.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners finally contended that in this case, investigation was conducted by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police and he is not duly authorised to conduct the investigation and he is not entitled to file charge sheet for the cognizance offence. The Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also produced a letter received from the office of the Inspector General of Police, (Establishment)-cum-Public Information Officer, Office of the Director General of Police, Chennai, to substantiate the above. But in this case, only the Special Sub-Inspector of Police conducted the entire investigation and filed the charge sheet. Hence, the entire investigation is vitiated and is liable to be set aside and the accused have to be discharged.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would contend that the petitioners were permitted to peruse the entire Court records. As per the Court records, there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the prosecution records. In the registration of FIR, there is a clerical mistake regarding the time instead of 19.30 hours, it was mistakenly typed as 10.30 hours. In the other subsequent documents, correct date and time were specifically and clearly mentioned. Further, even it is seen from the records, the total number of the accused is differs from the First Information Report, Charge Sheet and Accident Register copy and it will not be a ground for discharging the accused at this stage and it has to be decided only at the time of final hearing. Further, in this case, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police is empowered to investigate the offence and the report submitted by the petitioners is only the letter given under the Right to Information Act. Even though it is irregularity, it cannot be vitiated the entire proceedings including the charge sheet filed by the Special Sub- Inspector of Police. Hence, the trial Court, after considering the entire arguments of the petitioners, dismissed the petitions filed by them. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would further contend that the Special Sub-Inspector of Police has no power to file charge sheet and only on irregularity, it cannot be a ground for discharging the accused from the case and hence, the criminal revision cases have to be dismissed.

6. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire original records received from the trial Court.

7. On a perusal of the entire original records and on reading of the FIR and original complaint, it is seen that the date of occurrence and time were mentioned as follows:-

"2(a) Occurrence of offence day (TAMIL) 31.03.2012 Date from TAMIL ........ Date to TAMIL ........ Time Period neu mst[ 11.30 Time from TAMIL ........ Time To TAMIL tiu ........ (b) Information Received at PS Date TAMIL 31.03.2012 Time To TAMIL 19/30 (c) General Diary Reference : Entry No(s) TAMIL ........ VoL I Time TAMIL ; 19/30" In the same FIR, it is stated as follows:-

" TAMIL

8. The original complaint was given to the police station on the same date of occurrence on 31.03.2012 and the original complaint was received by the Court on 09.04.2012 at Sl.No.873 and the time was mentioned in the back of the complaint as 19.30 hours. Hence, on a reading of the original compliant, original FIR and also the Xerox copy submitted on the side of the revision petitioners, it is clearly established that the original complaint was registered by the police at 19.30 hours on 31.03.2012 and the date of occurrence is on 31.03.2012 at 11.30 a.m.

9. In this case, the complaint was given by the complainant and it was registered by the police on 31.03.2012 at 19.30 a.m. Even though it was correctly recorded in the back of the original complaint, at the end of the FIR, it was stated as 10.30 hours instead of 19.30 hours. Hence, there is a clerical mistake occurred instead of recording the time as 19.30 hours, it was recorded as 10.30 hours. On the face of it, it is seen that it was only a mistake committed by the person who registered FIR. Even though it was correctly entered in the original complaint, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the date of occurrence is on 31.03.2012 at 11.30 hours, but the FIR was registered on 31.03.2012 at 10.30 hours is fatal to the case of the prosecution and the above argument is liable to be rejected.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that in the statement, the complainant had stated as follows:-

" TAMIL "

11. Hence, in the above statement, P.W.1 specifically stated about the overt act attributed by the four persons and the same was reflected in the FIR registered by the police. But in the complaint, the complainant had stated as follows:-

TAMIL "

12. Hence, in the complaint, totally four persons were mentioned. But, in the Accident Register copy, when the injured was brought before the Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute, he stated before the Doctor that he was alleged to have assaulted by ten known persons with wood stick at Navaloor around 11.30 a.m. on 31.03.2012. Hence, since there are some discrepancies with regard to the number of persons, it has to be considered only at the time of trial regarding the velacity of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and this cannot be a ground for discharging the petitioners at this stage. Hence, the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also liable to be rejected. The delay in presenting the charge sheet into Court will not be a ground for discharging the accused from the alleged offences. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused have to be discharged, in view of the filing of charge sheet is not at all acceptable.

13. On a perusal of records called for from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu, reveals that a letter was written by S.Rajasekaran/A.1 to the Public Insormation Officer, which reads as follows:-

"From

S.Rajasekaran

No.1 Thiru Veedi Amman Koil Street,

Kalikundram, Tharamani,

Chennai - 600 113.

To,

The Public Information Officer,

(Designated under RTI),

Ministry of Home Department (Police),

Secretariat, Chennai - 600 002.

Sub : Seeking information under RTI Act - Reg.

Sir,

Kindly provide me the following information

1) Whether Special Sub-Inspector of Police (SSI) of Tamil Nadu

State file charge sheet in cognizable offences under Cr.P.C.

2) Whether SSI can investigate a cognizable offence.

3) Whether SSI can register FIR in non-bailable offences under Cr.P.C.

Hence furnish me the above said informations at the earliest.

S.Rajasekaran

with regards"

14. In response to the above said letter, a reply was given by the Secretary to Government to S.Rajasekaran and the said reply reads as follows:-

" TAMIL - 600 004."

15. In view of the letter written by one of the revision petitioner viz., S.Rajasekaran/A.1 to the Government, the Inspector General of Police (Establishment)-cum-Public Information Officer, replied under Right to Information Act stating as follows:-

The information sought for by the applicant in the reference cited are furnished below:

S.No. Reply

1 Special Sub-Inspector has no power to file charge sheet in cognizable offence under Cr.P.C. 2 and 3 Yes

16. In view of the above, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police has no power to file charge sheet and the Special Sub-Inspector of Police can register the FIR for non-bailable offence under Cr.P.C. Further, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police can register the case and investigate the cognizable of offence is also admitted by the Inspector General of Police. Hence, in this case, one Mr.G.Seenivasan, Special Sub-Inpsector of Police, E9-Thazhambur police station, Kancheepuram District, has registered the First Information Report and investigated the offence finally on 21.07.2002. He has filed the charge sheet, but even according to the reply given by the Inspector General of Police, he has no power to file charge sheet in cognizable offence under Cr.P.C. For the above said argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate has not stated any provision of law or any special power or authority was given to the Special Sub-Inspector of Police to file a charge sheet in this case.

17. In view of the above letter written by the office of the Inspector General of Police, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police has no power to file charge sheet in the cognizable offence under Cr.P.C. Hence, in the present case, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, filed the charge sheet which is contrary to law and is beyond his powers as mentioned in the above stated reply given by the office of the Inspector General of Police.

18. In this case, the charge sheet was filed by the officer, who is not authorised to file charge sheet under Cr.P.C. and hence, the charge sheet filed by the officer is liable to be set aside. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Special Sub-Inspector of Police has no power to file charge sheet in cognizable offence under Cr.P.C. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the revisions by setting aside the charge sheet filed by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police.

19. In this result, all the criminal revision cases are allowed and the charge sheet filed by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, E9- Thazhambur police station, in Crime No.201 of 2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu. The Sub-Inspector of Police, E.9-Thazhambur police station, Kancheepuram District, is directed to investigate the matter and file charge sheet, if any offence is made out, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpet, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, according to law. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police, through the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //