IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.8220 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 P.Baskaran ..Petitioner/1st Accused Versus The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch/II, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008. (X.Crime No. 630 /2000) ..Respondent/Complainant Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in CC No.8052 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj, Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R The petitioner/accused-1 has filed this above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in CC No.8052 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8 and quash the same. 2. The prosecution case is that one Mr.M.Rajeswaran, Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Annasalai, Chennai-2 has made a complaint against the (1) petitioner/Bhaskaran (2) K. Palanivel, Foreman, Grade II, Tamilandu Electricity Board, Villivakkam and (3) S. Kalyanam, Commercial Inspector, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Royapuram, Chennai-13 before the Central Crime Branch, Chennai city, Chennai. 3. The crime branch, after receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.630 of 2000 on an alleged offence under Sections 419, 420 r/w 109 of I.P.C. The respondent police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigated the matter and filed a final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. The final report reveals that in the year 1994, based on the Khalid Committee and Supreme Court orders, temporary labourers were made permanent labourers. The contract labourer, C.Karunakaran, who is an accident victim at the work spot, was asked to appear for the interview on 27.12.1994. That being so, the accused-1, with the help of accused A2 and A3, who were holding important position in C.I.T.U and also in the selection committee panel, by way of impersonation etc., got appointment in the place of C. Karunakaran and cheated the complainant. 4. Further, the accused No.1, noted above, who was working as a casual labourer presented himself as Karunakaran in order to obtain regular employment in the place of Karunakaran, who lost his vision, blurred in an electrical accident in the year 1992 and the accused-1, being a contract labourer, in order to get himself regularised, attended the interview in the year 1994 as Karunakaran. However, subsequently, from 03.01.1997, he did not attend the job. Later, as his name was recommended and enlisted as per the Khalid Commission report as a contract labourer, he got absorbed as helper in regular cadre in his own name. 5. The accused A2 and A3, knowingly abetted the act of impersonation by accused A1, enabled him to secure the appointment in the place of genuine candidate, Karunakaran, who did not opt to attend the interview due to his vision, affected in an electrical accident. Thus, the accused A1, appears to have made himself, liable for an offence punishable under Section 419 I.P.C for impersonating himself as Karunakaran and under Section 420 I.P.C for cheating the Tamilandu Electricity Board. While accused A2 and A3 appeared to have committed an offence under Section 419, 420 and r/w 109 of I.P.C for having abetted A1 in securing the employment. In the said case, A1 to A3 were arrested and remanded to Judicial custody. They were lodged in Central Prison, Chennai. This is the prosecution case. 6. Now, the petitioner has filed the quash petition for the below mentioned reasons. The petitioner has stated that in the year 1985, the petitioner joined the Tamilnadu Electricity Board as a casual labourer to do the manual work of digging, laying pipes, laying cables etc. This was through a contractor. In respect of regularisation of the service of the petitioner and persons similarly placed like him, litigations were initiated before industrial adjudicator. Ultimately, by an order of the Honourable Supreme Court, Honourable Mr. Justice V.Khalid was appointed to decide the issue relating to regularisation and to submit suitable recommendation. The petitioner is one of the persons, who had been absorbed in the services of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board based on the recommendations of Honourable Mr.Justice V. Khalid. Along with the petitioner, thousands of contract labourers were absorbed. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the process of large scale absorption, there had been some confusion in the name assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner received his absorption in his nickname. When enquired in this regard, it was informed that it was by mistake and in due course, it will be rectified. 7. It is submitted that due to family circumstances, the petitioner resigned his employment on 31.12.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner again joined as a contract labourer in the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, owing to his needs and to sustain himself. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board selected the petitioner to the post of helper by its order dated 11.07.1997 and the petitioner joined duty on 16.07.1997. The petitioner has been discharging his work sincerely and efficiently. It is further submitted that the Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, (North), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board preferred a complaint on 01.08.2000 as if the petitioner impersonated one Karunakaran and joined employment with them as helper on 04.07.1995. This was with regard to the first absorption, which the petitioner had resigned. Based on the complaint, there had been no action by the respondent police since the year 2000. The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, who had preferred the complaint with the respondent police, initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo dated 22.12.2000. The sum and substance of the charges in the disciplinary proceedings were that the petitioner had impersonated one C.Karunakaran and obtained employment with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board during the year 1994. The charges levelled against the petitioner were in respect of the first absorption and it was also the subject matter of the complaint preferred by the Superintending Engineer to the respondent police. 8. It is submitted that the Superintending Engineer conducted a domestic enquiry in respect of the charge memo dated 22.12.2000. After enquiry the Superintending Engineer, initially proposed punishment vide his proceedings dated 29.05.2002. However, the Superintending Engineer after considering the fact that nothing remains in the charges levelled against the petitioner, by his proceedings dated 27.09.2006, dropped the charges levelled against the petitioner. While so, the respondent police arrested the petitioner on 15.12.2006 in respect of the complaint preferred by the Superintending Engineer. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on bail by this Hon'ble Court by an order dated 08.01.2007 in Crl.O.P.No.561 of 2007. 9. It is submitted that even though the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1994, the Superintending Engineer preferred complaint only in the year 2000. The respondent police after the proceedings being dropped by the Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, North, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, filed the charge sheet on 19.12.2006 in C.C.No.8052 of 2006 before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after a long and unexplained gap of six years without applying its mind. The petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.1. The charge sheet runs as follows: "That the accused A1 noted above who was working as a Casual Labourer presented himself as Karunakaran in order to obtain regular employment in the place of Karunakaran who lost his vision blurred in an electrical accident in the year 1992 and the accused being the contract labourer in order to get himself regularised attended the interview in the year 1994 as Karunakaran. However, subsequently from 03.01.1997 he did not attend the job. Later as his name was recommended and enlisted as per the Khalid Commission Report as a contract labourer he got absorbed as Helper in regular cadre in his own name. The accused A2 and A3 knowingly abetted the act of impersonation by accused A1 enabled him to secure the appointment in the place of genuine candidate Karunakaran who did not opt to attend the interview due to his vision affected in an electrical accident. Thus the accused A1 appears to have made himself liable for an offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC for impersonating himself as Karunakaran and under Section 420 of IPC for cheating the management. While accused A2 and A3 appeared to have committed an offence under Section 419, 420 r/w 109 of IPC for having abetted A1 in securing the employment. 10. It is submitted that when the defacto complainant itself has dropped the proceedings, the respondent police has filed the charge sheet without applying its mind. In such circumstances, the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8052 of 2006 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 in X Crime No.630 of 2000 insofar as petitioner is concerned. 11. After perusal of the complaint and contentions of the petitioner and other connected records filed by the petitioner, namely, F.I.R, Charge Memo, Chargesheet etc., and arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent, the Court is of the view that the petitioner had admitted that he worked in the name of Karunakaran instead of his original name Baskaran, S/o Perumal. Further, it has been alleged that the Superintending Engineer had dropped the charges levelled against the petitioner by his proceedings dated 27.09.2006. While so, the petitioner has also alleged the action of the respondent police in filing the charge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sheet only exhibits total non-application of mind. This Court feels that if the Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board had really withdrawn the charges against the petitioner, the petitioner could have approached the same officer, who is the defacto complainant for getting remedy. But this Court, in the prevailing circumstances of the case could not interfere with the proceedings in CC No.8052 of 2006 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition No.8220 of 2007 has got to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch/II, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.8220 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 NSM (CO) GSK 16.11.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/