1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:05.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9726 of 2011 Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Petitioner/Investigating Officer Vs. Pandi @ Attack Pandi ... Respondent/Accused PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.4836 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and to set aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.4836 of 2011, dated 27.07.2011 and permit the petitioner/Investigating Officer to take the custody of the accused for 3 days for custodial interrogation. For Petitioner : Mr.Ramachandran Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent : Mr.K.Jeganathan O R D E R This petition is filed seeking for a direction, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.4836 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and to set aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.4836 of 2011, dated 27.07.2011 and permit the petitioner/Investigating Officer to take the custody of the accused for 3 days for custodial interrogation. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Additional Public Prosecutor has come forward with this petition to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.4836 of 2011, since, the application for police custody has been dismissed, the petitioner/Investigating Officer has preferred the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.9726 of 2011. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the respondent/accused was arrested in yet another case on 16.07.2011 and was produced on P.T. warrant on 21.07.2011 and remanded to judicial custody on 22.07.2011. For custodial interrogation, the petitioner/Investigating Officer seeks permission to take the custody of the respondent/accused for 3 days, since the case has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 406, 506(2) r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harrassment Act. Hence, he prayed for interrogation at least one day for police custody. 5. Repudiating the same, the learned counsel for the respondent/Accused would submit that already 15 days time is over. Further more, he stated that the offences are not grave in nature and that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, had considered all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the averments in this petition and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State by Deputy Superintendent of Police Q Branch CID, Dharmapuri Vs. Sundaramoorthy reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 414 (DB) and came to the correct conclusion, that he exercised the judicial discretion, while passing the order and hence, there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused further submitted that he was arrested in yet another case. Hence, there is no necessity for custodial interrogation. 6. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, the case has been registered against six accused on 17.07.2011 in crime No.339 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 406, 506(ii) IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and the respondent was arrested in yet another case on 16.07.2011 and was produced on P.T warrant on 21.07.2011 and remanded to judicial custody on 22.07.2011. The alleged occurrence has been taken place before 10.07.2011 and the complaint has been received on 17.07.2011 at 07.15 p.m and the case has been registered on the same day. But the period of 15 days has been completed on this day. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that already the respondent was taken to police custody for custodial interrogation in another case in Crime No.53 of 2011 under Sections 406, 420, 427, 448, 468, 471 and 506 (ii) IPC and produced at 05.00 p.m on 04.08.2011 before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. 7. In such circumstances, considering the gravity of the offence in this Crime, I feel that there is no necessity for custodial interrogation, since it is only under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 406, 506(ii) IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai has considered the averments in F.I.R and incorporated the same in his order and considering the judgment of this Division Bench and came to the correct conclusion. Hence, I am of the view that this application devoid of merits. Hence this application is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. Ps SR : 22.08.2011 : 2p/3c Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9726 of 2011 05.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/