IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No. 29541 of 2003 and M.P.No.8154 of 2003 1. M.S.Nasimudeen 2. K. Ravi .. Petitioners/Accused Versus Mrs. A. Geetha .. Respondent/Complainant Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to to call for the records in C.C.No.44 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karthikeyan for Mr.G.R.M.Palaniappan For Respondent : M/s. R. Srinivas (No appearance) O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition No.29541 of 2003 to call for the records in C.C.No.44 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and quash the same. 2. The respondent/complainant has contended in her complaint that her husband is a merchant in I.M.F.L. and conducting licenced arrack business in karaikal. The Tamil Nadu Excise Police Officials inconsistently forced her husband to pay huge sums as illegal gratification. The same was refused by the complainant's husband. On 26.02.3003, when the complainant's husband was looking after his business in Karaikal, the petitioners/accused joined together, came in a private ambassador car bearing registration No.TAF 6582 along with a jeep and a group of persons and forcibly abducted her husband, namely Anandan and had taken him secretly and wrongfully and confined without informing anyone. The same was witnessed by two persons, who were present at the spot. Further, the complainant alleged that her relatives and men followed the vehicle and tried to trace the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ whereabouts of her husband, but it was in vain. Then, the complainant came to know that a case was registered in Crime No.326 of 2003 with the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Chidambaram for an alleged offence of transport of contraband prohibited liquor from Bangalore to Karaikal by the complainant's husband and got hold by the accused No.2 on 26.02.2003 by 20.00 hrs at Chidambaram. It is apparently a concocted case as the said Anandan himself was present at Karaikal town and he has got unimpeachable documents to show that he has been in Karaikal till midday and thereafter going to Bangalore on the day or earlier and returning with contraband by 20.00 hrs on 26.02.2003 to Keerapalayam is an impossibility. Therefore, it is apparent that both the accused conspired together and abducted and had taken the said Anandan secretly and wrongly confined on the refusal to pay huge sum towards business conducted by the said Anandan in Karaikal. Therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint and mentioned 10 witnesses for supporting her complaint. The said complaint has been taken on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal. 3. The petitioners contended that they are police officers attached to Prohibition and Enforcement Wing. The respondent's husband, one Anandan faces more than six criminal cases, which come under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The complainant's husband, Anandan has been detained under Act 14/82 and remanded in judicial custody. Further, the complainant's husband was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo, and he did not give any complaint against the petitioners. Further, the petitioners have arrested the complainant's husband on 26.02.2003 and the same was informed to one Rajendran, friend of the accused Anandan. 4. The petitioners submitted that the ingredients of the complaint will not attract Section 365 of IPC. Further, the complainant has alleged that the petitioners and a group of persons had come to her husband's place in a jeep and a car, and that it happened in front of the public, who witnessed the same. As such the question of kidnapping does not arise. 5. The respondent submitted that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 365 of IPC; that the petitioners kidnapped the complainant's husband and kept him in wrongful confinement. 6. Considering the above contentions of the petitioners as well as the respondent, the Court is of the view that the petitioners are police officers and so they had arrested the respondent's husband Anandan in Crime No.326 of 2003 on 26.02.2003, for offence under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Further, the history sheet of the complainant's husband clearly shows that he is a habitual offender. Under the circumstances the Court is inclined to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and quash the same. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal. 2. -do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. 1 cc To Mr.G.R.M.Palaniappan, Advocate, SR.33237. Crl.O.P.No. 29541 of 2003 and M.P.No.8154 of 2003 DM(CO) RVL 31.07.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/