IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 05.10.2009 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P. No.17900 of 2009 and M.P. No.1 of 2009 M.Ravi ... Petitioner/5th Accused vs. 1.R.Palani Subramanian 2.P.Gnanasekaran 3.Punitha Gnanasekaran ... RespondentsComplainant Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl.Op.No.17900/09 - Criminal Orginal Petition Praying to call for the records in CC No.888/2009 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, quash the Proccedings therein. For petitioner : Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran For respondents : Mr.N.Ramakrishnan for M/s. Waraon & Sai Rams, O R D E R The petitioner, who is a Sub Inspector of Police, taken as A5 in C.C. No.888 of 2009 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for offences under Sections 454, 456, 447, 448, 427, 352, 354 and 506 (ii) IPC., seek to quash the said proceedings. 2. The allegation in the private complaint made by the respondents/complainants, who are relatives, is that R-1 entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat with one T.A.Rathod, Managing Director of M/s.Trans Medica (India) Limited and also settled 85% of the sale consideration, taking possession of the property; under such circumstances, on the instructions of the first accused, who purchased the property in question in spite of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ existence of the agreement of sale entered into by R1 and taking possession of the Flat by R-1, other accused including A4/Inspector of Police and the petitioner herein/Sub Inspector of Police trespassed into the flat, assaulted the complainants, dragged them to the police station, falsely registered a case in Crime No.49 of 2009 and, in the false case, obtained orders for remanding R-1 and R-2. The occurrence took place at intervals between 06.02.2009 and 09.02.2009, as a result of which, the complainants were dispossessed from the Flat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A5 Sub Inspector of Police submits that the complaint jointly preferred by three persons before the learned Magistrate is not maintainable in law, for one individual alone could be the complainant and others would be witnesses, but, in the case on hand, three persons have been shown as complainants and the joint and single complaint given by them cannot be entertained. Referring to the case law reported in 1989 Law Weekly (Crl.) 186 (Krishnamurthy R. Vs. M.P.Raja), he reiterates that such joint complaint is not valid in the eye of law by drawing attention of this Court to the following observation made therein, " 4. As regards the validity of the complaint is concerned, it is contended that one complaint cannot be filed by two persons; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the complaint filed by two persons jointly is not in the contemplation of the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and produced before me two decisions: (1) Sashahar Achairya v. Sir Charles Tegari AIR 1931 Calcutta 646 wherein it was held that "A joint complaint by two persons is not contemplated by the Code" and (2) Narayanaswami vs. Egappa Reddi 1961 MWN (Crl.) 129 wherein it was held that "A complaint could be filed by only one person. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for joint complaints". The learned counsel appearing for the other side would concede that the complaint filed as such was not in order and that it will be possible either to file fresh complaints or to see that one of the complainants withdraws from the complaint. 5. The resulting position is that the complaint as it was filed is not valid; all the subsequent steps taken by the learned Magistrate on the complaint are to be considered as not legal and are thereby quashed. If the complaint is revised in a legal manner in one way or the other, the learned Magistrate will deal with it afresh in accordance with law." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He points out that the above case law has been followed by this Court in the order dated 13.02.2007 passed in Crl.O.P. Nos.27116 and 26779 of 2006 and states that on this ground alone, the private complaint preferred against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 3-A. By pointing out that, in the complaint, the order of the High Court dated 06.02.2009 passed in O.A. Nos.936 and 937 of 2009 granting injunction in favour of the complainants was highlighted, however, such injunction was vacated by the Division Bench on 19.02.2009; it is next submitted, in the private complaint lodged before the learned Magistrate on 05.03.2009, details regarding Division Bench order were conveniently omitted. According to the learned counsel, had those relevant details been reflected in the complaint, the learned Magistrate would not have taken cognizance in view of the order passed by the Division Bench, setting aside the injunction granted in favour of the complainant/R1; therefore, on that ground also, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3-B. Thirdly, by relying on the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Chennai Police, bearing R.O.C. No.1087-3/JC(S)/Camp/2008, dated 26.11.2008, whereby the petitioner was deputed for investigation in a triple murder case, learned counsel submits that when admittedly, the petitioner was deputed to perform special duty, the alleged acts cannot be attributed to the petitioner; therefore, looking at any perspective, the proceedings against the petitioner are not sustainable in law, hence, the prayer sought for may be granted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the alleged occurrence took place at intervals between 06.02.2009 and 09.02.2009 in which all the three complainants were subjected to physical and mental suffering at the hands of the accused, that is the reason why, all of them joined together and preferred a single private complaint before the learned Magistrate since it was felt just and necessary that the entire spectrum of the sequence of events that took place successively during four days period should be put in vividly and that individual complaints with break-up details would not serve the purpose; hence, according to the learned counsel, such complaint preferred jointly by the respondents/complainants can be accepted in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved. Secondly, it is submitted that, during the period of occurrence, the order of injunction in favour of the complainants was in force and it was vacated only subsequently. It is further submitted that the factum of the petitioner having been deputed to the team investigating the triple murder case was not known to the complainant, however, they have specific grievance against the petitioner/A5. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made with reference to the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Admittedly, a single complaint has been given by three different persons on the ground that the occurrence took place between 06.02.2009 and 09.02.2009 over purchase and possession of a Flat in which all of them were subjected to harassment at the hands of the accused including the petitioner herein. If that be so, different complaints for the alleged acts against each individual would have been filed and the court also would have been requested to take all those complaints for joint trial. Repeatedly, such practice of filing joint complaint has been deprecated by the Apex Court as well as this Court. Secondly, when a litigant approaches a court of law, he must come forward with clean hands and there should not be suppression of material particulars so as to procure gainful orders or bypass the procedure outlined. In the present case, seemingly, orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the injunction order in favour of the complainant was conveniently omitted to be mentioned and, as rightly pointed out, had such details been mentioned, the learned Magistrate would have appreciated the allegations in a different manner. Thirdly, it is the bounden duty of the complainant to collect all relevant materials regarding presence and involvement of the accused in the alleged activities, for, the same is within the domain of the complainant and only after prima facie satisfaction on the allegations based on the materials collected, courts would proceed to take cognizance. On a perusal of the proceedings, dated 26.11.2008, of the Joint Commissioner of Police, it is apparent that the petitioner/A5 was not at all available to attend the works at the Station since he was deputed for a special task. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings pending in C.C. No.888 of 2009 on the file of the CMM, Egmore, Chennai, are liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioner herein/A5 is concerned and accordingly quashed. Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. JI. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. + 1 cc toMr. C.s. Dhanasekaran, Advocate CC SR.50842 + 1 cc to Mr. Waraon of Sai Rams, Advocate SR.51153 Crl.O.P. No.17900 of 2009. GV(CO) EU 26.10.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/