IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 17.09.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA Crl.O.P.No.7739/2008 & M.P.No1/2008 P.Pakalavan .. Petitioner/Accused 1 -Vs- State of Tamilnadu rep. By its Revenue Divisional Officer A.Nambirajan Krishnagiri .. Respondent/Complainant Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records relating to PRC.No.1/2008 from the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan,SC for Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram For Respondent : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran,APP ORDER The petitioner who has been arrayed as A1 has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against him for the offence under sections 304[part II], 326,324 r/w 34 IPC pending in PRC.No.1/2008 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri. 2.Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even as per the materials available on record, taken in its entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is contended that the case of the prosecution is to the effect that the petitioner, without obtaining proper permission from the concerned competent authority has ordered firing which resulted in the death of one person and injuries to nine persons. The learned Senior Counsel contended that as per the complaint in this case, it is specifically stated that firing was ordered only by the Inspector of Police, who has been arrayed as A2 and as such, the question of ordering firing by the petitioner not at all arises. It is further contended that even as per the statements recorded from the official witnesses by the Revenue Divisional Officer, only at the instance of the other accused, viz., A2, firing was ordered and fired https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by A3 and A4 resulted in the alleged occurrence causing the death of a person and injuries to 9 persons. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings as far as the petitioner is concerned, is liable to be quashed. 3.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that in the departmental proceedings in respect of the same identical charge and allegations, the petitioner has been exonerated by the department by order dated 13.03.2008 in G.O.[2D] No.136 Home [Police 2] Department. Therefore, it is contended that in view of exoneration of the petitioner from the charge leveled against him in the departmental proceedings, the question of allowing the criminal proceedings to continue not at all arises. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.S.RAJYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR reported in 1996 SCC [Cri.] 897 for the proposition that once the accused is exonerated in the departmental proceedings on identical charge, the criminal case instituted on such identical charge and allegation is liable to be quashed. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the point raised by the petitioner herein is to be agitated only at the time of trial. It is submitted that both the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings may continue simultaneously and there is no legal impediment. It is submitted that a detailed counter has been filed by the respondent, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that merely because the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges, he is not entitled to seek the relief of quashing the proceedings in a pending criminal case. It is contended that the Government after careful examination of the enquiry officer, as the petitioner along with the other accused have been found guilty, has preferred the present complaint and as such, there is absolutely no other ground made out for quashing the proceedings. 5.I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials available on record including the petition filed by the petitioner as well as the counter filed by the respondent herein. 6.The petitioner who has been arrayed as A1 was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, has been implicated for the alleged offence as stated above. The crux of the allegation, as already pointed out, the petitioner being the Deputy Superintendent of Police, without obtaining proper sanction and permission from the competent higher authority ordered firing and thereafter, the other accused, viz., A3 and A4 fired resulting in the death of one person and injuries to nine persons. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, a perusal of the entire materials discloses that the firing was ordered only by A2 and on his order, A3 and A4 said to have fired https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ resulting in the alleged occurrence. It is pertinent to be noted even in the earliest document, viz., in the complaint, it was specifically mentioned to the effect that only at the instance of A2, A3 and A4 fired which resulted in the alleged occurrence. 7.A perusal of the subsequent statements recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer from the competent witnesses also disclose that it was only A2 who ordered firing and thereafter, A3 and A4 fired, resulting in the death of a person and injuries to nine persons. Therefore, even if the allegations contained in the complaint as well the other materials available on record, viz., the statements recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer during the enquiry, taken in its entirety to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioner much less the offences alleged against the petitioner as stated above. As such, allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would amount to a clear case of abuse of the process of Court and as such, the proceedings is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 8.The yet another contention put forward by the learned Senior Counsel is to the effect that the petitioner was exonerated from the same allegations and on the identical charge and as such, the question of continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to a clear case of abuse of the process of Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was exonerated for the charge on the same allegations in the departmental proceedings in G.O.[2D] No.136, Home [Police 2] Department, dated 13.3.2008. A perusal of the said order discloses that the petitioner faced the identical charge on the same allegations before the department and it is specifically mentioned in the said order that the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, who conducted the enquiry has held that the charge as "NOT PROVED" and thereafter, after careful examination of the charge, explanation of the delinquent officer coupled with the finding of the enquiry officer, has decided to accept the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the charge is not true and to drop further action against the petitioner. Therefore, it is crystal clear that after having exonerated the petitioner in respect of the identical charge in the departmental proceedings, allowing the criminal proceedings would clearly amount to a clear case of abuse of the process of Court. 9.The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in P.S.RAJYA's case [cited supra] that:- "The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. In the instant case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ criminal proceedings is one and the same. If the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the report submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings. The appellant's case can be brought under more than one head of guidelines laid down in Bhajan Lal case for quashing of a complaint/FIR. The High Court was not right in taking the view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant." 10.Therefore, the above settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also, admittedly, the petitioner has been exonerated from the identical charge containing same allegations as that of this case in the departmental proceedings. 11.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is constrained to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the proceedings in PRC.No.1/2008 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri District insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ap To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri. 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Revenue Divisional Officer State of Tamilnadu Krishnagiri. 1 CC To Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram, Advocate, SR NO.53031 Crl.OP.No.7739/2008 rsy(co) pmk/24.9.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/