These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders, to call for the records in connection with P.R.C.No.8 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.

2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9128 of 2019 is the 12th accused; the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18189 of 2019 is the 11 th accused and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1784 of 2020 are the accused 1, 2, 4 to 10 in P.R.C.No.8 of 2019, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant, F.I.R.,came to be registered in Cr.No.69 of 2006, dated 21.03.2006 against 5 named persons and 8 unknown, but identifiable persons for the alleged offences under Sections 147 , 148 , 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C., on the file of the first respondent.

3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second accused Subramanian, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.68 of 2006 against 3/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 the defacto complainant herein, his assistant and 4 others for the alleged offences under Sections 147 , 341 , 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. The first respondent, after completing the investigation in Cr.No.68 of 2006, has laid a final report against the same persons for the alleged offenes under Sections 147 , 148 , 341 , 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C., and 149 I.P.C ., and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.192 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thenkasi and subsequently, the same was transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Senkottai and was taken on file in C.C.No.246 of 2006. It is not in dispute that after trial, the defacto complainant, his assistant and others were acquitted from all the charges, vide judgment dated 16.07.2013.

4. After completing the investigation in Cr.NO.69 of 2006, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police has filed a final report dated 21.03.2006 as mistake of fact. The defacto complainant has filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4794 of 2006 seeking transfer of the investigation in Cr.No.69 of 2006 and the learned Judge of this Court, taking note of the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the final report has already been filed, dismissed the 4/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 petition, vide order dated 28.11.2006. The defacto complainant has then filed a petition before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Thenkasi to change Investigating Officer and the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 07.09.2007, has directed the Inspector of Police of the concerned police station to conduct the investigation.

5. In pursuance of the said direction, the Inspector of Police has filed a final report dated 18.08.2009 stating that he conducted re-investigation as per the directions of the jurisdictional Magistrate and his investigation has revealed that the final report filed by the Inspector of Police closing the case as mistake of fact is correct. The defacto complainant, after the receipt of the Referred Charge Sheet notice has filed the protest petition before the jurisdictional Court. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statements of the defacto complainant and other witnesses produced by him and on hearing the defacto complainant's side, has passed an order dated 01.03.2019, taking cognizance of the case in P.R.C.NO.8 of 2019, for the alleged offences under Sections 147 , 148 , 353 , 506(ii) I.P.C., and under Section 3 of TNPPDL Act against all the respondents/accused shown in the protest 5/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 petition and the same is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangulam. Pending P.R.C., the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.10 and the accused 11 and 12 have filed the present Criminal Original Petitions seeking quashment of the above said case.

6. The case of the defacto complainant is that on 21.03.2006, when he was in office, the Village Development Association President Thiru.Palavesam, Ward Nos.1 and 2 members and Patta Holders' Association Secretary – Mariraj and Surandai Community leader – Arumugam have given a written complaint and on receipt of the same, the defacto complainant, who was the then Village Administrative Officer of Kulaiyaneri along with Revenue Inspector – Tmt.Selvasundari, Village Assistant – Krishnan and the above referred complainants have visited the Pottal, Oorani, Canal and cart track situated in S.Nos.221/3 and 199/1 and at that time, the accused 1,2,4 and 5 and the retired police Inspector – Madasamy and the unknown, but identifiable 8 persons had assembled unlawfully with crowbar, aruval and other weapons with an intention to damage the water canal used by the general public, that in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, the 6/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 water canal was being filled up with stones, sand, soil by using heavy vehicles like JCB etc., that when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant as to why they were damaging the water canal, as the waterflow to Ilanthaikulam would get affected and there would be floods during heavy rain fall, that the first accused had directed to close the water canal without leaving any trace, that when the defacto complainant was performing his official work, the above accused had abused him in filthy language and threatened him with weapons and that they would lodge a PCR complaint and thereby the official work of the second respondent was disrupted and that since the accused persons were displaying the weapons, the revenue Officials including the defacto complainant, with no other option, have returned fearing for their lives.

7. The case of the prosecution in Cr.No.68 of 2006 is that on 21.03.2006 at about 11.30a.m., when the defacto complainant in Cr.No. 68 of 2006 who was working in the Wind Mill Annai Construction, was proceeding in a vehicle with one Subramanian along with the South- North mud road in S.Nos.221/7 and 199/1 situated on the East of Kulaiyaneri Village, the Village Administrative Officer, his assistant and 7/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 four others had formed themselves into unlawful assembly and prevented JCB vehicle from proceeding further and they had abused with unparliamentary words and also caused criminal intimidation. According to the first respondent police, the occurrence shown in Cr.No.68 of 2006 alleged to have occurred at 11.30a.m., on 21.03.2006 is true, but whereas there was no such occurrence as alleged by the Village Administrative Officer at 12.00 noon on 21.03.2006.

8. At this juncture, it is necessary to consider the technical objection raised by the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the defacto complainant, the then Village Administrative Officer, got retired from Government service, that the original complaint was given by him in the capacity of the Village Administrative Officer of Kulaiyaneri Village alleging that he was prevented from performing his official duty, that after his retirement, he had no authority or locus standi to file the protest petition or to pursue the above case and that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider the locus standi of the defacto complainant to proceed with the above case after his retirement.

8/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would also reiterate that the defacto complainant after his retirement has no authority to file the protest petition or to proceed further and that he had not taken any prior permission from the higher authorities to pursue the above case.

10. Considering the above submissions, the question to be decided is as to whether the defacto complainant has locus standi to file the protest petition and to pursue the case, which came to be registered on his complaint.

11. The words “locus standi” has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as “the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum”. In Shri P.Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon, it has been defined as “ a right of appearance in a Court of justice”. Generally any person who is aggrieved or affected, has right or authority to approach the Court for seeking justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat and Others reported in (2017)9 SCC 340, has 9/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 specifically held that locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence, save and except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:

12. In the case on hand, as already pointed out, the Village Administrative Officer has preferred a complaint and on that basis, F.I.R., came to be registered and that since the police officials have filed two negative final reports, the defacto complainant, after receipt of RCS notice, has filed the protest petition before the jurisdictional Court.

13. Considering the above and also the legal position above referred, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the second respondent has locus standi to file the protest petition and pursue the above case and hence, the technical objection raised by the petitioners is liable to be rejected.

14. The next objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate, without conducting any enquiry under Sections 202 and 203 Cr.P.C., and without recording his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the 12/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 accused, has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order and as such, the entire proceedings in violation of the settled position of law and settled procedures are only to be considered as illegal and the same are liable to be quashed.

15. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the learned Magistrate, upon receiving a negative report, is duty bound either he has to accept the same or drop the same or to direct further investigation or investigate himself or order for re-investigation or take cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as a private complaint, if the materials warrant, that there must be an application of mind on the part of the Judicial Magistrate and he is also duty bound to pass a speaking order as to why it was taken on file as a private complaint, but in the present case, the learned Magistrate has not passed any speaking order and simply passed an order to take the case on file and issued summons for the petitioners/accused, that though the Magistrate is duty bound to conduct enquiry under Sections 202 and 203 Cr.P.C., before taking the same on file as a private complaint and in the case on hand, no enquiry was conducted and no sworn statement was recorded and no order under 13/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 Section 204 Cr.P.C., was passed before proceeding further.

16. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd., and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others reported in ( 1998)5 SCC 749 and GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Limited reported in (2013)4 SCC 505.

17. In both the decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course and the relevant passages in the above decisions are extracted hereunder:

Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. “

( ii) GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Limited [ (2013)4 SCC 505].

“14. Be that as it may, as held by this Court, summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the 15/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record.”

18. Regarding the objection with respect to non-following of the provisions under Sections 202 to 204 Cr.P.C., it is the specific contention of the petitioners that the learned Magistrate has not followed the settled procedures upon the receipt of the protest petition, that the Court has not chosen to record any sworn statement from the defacto complainant and no enquiry was conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and that without assigning any reasons, has passed a cryptic order taking cognizance of the case against all the accused shown in the protest petition and for the offences alleged therein.

19. It is settled law that the Magistrate can very well treat the protest petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required under Secton 200 r/w 202 Cr.P.C .. In Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and another reported in (2019)3 MWN (Crl.)197, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

The prayer in the protest petition is to set aside the final report and to allow the application against the final report. While we are not suggesting that the form must entirely be decisive of the question whether it amounts to a complaint or liable to be treated as a complaint, we would think that essentially, the protest petition in this case, is summing up of the objections the second respondent against the final report.”

20. It is pertinent to note that the Magistrate is vested with the discretion either to treat the protest petition as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and proceed in accordance with law, or the Magistrate can close the protest petition by giving liberty to the informant or defacto complainant to file a private complaint. In the case on hand, the defacto complainant has filed a protest petition with a specific prayer not to accept the final report and to treat his complaint as a private complaint. It is evident from the records that the learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the defacto complainant, has then proceeded to record 17/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 the statements of all the four witnesses produced by the defacto complainant. Upon perusing the records available, the Magistrate has passed an order taking cognizance. No doubt, it is a cryptic order. Whether a cryptic and non-speaking order by itself can be a ground to quash the proceedings is the next question required to be considered. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Magistrate has to record his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

21. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah and another Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2000)1 SCC 722, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that there is no legal requirement for the trial Court to write an elaborate order for issuance of process and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:

22. It is also necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2012)5 SCC 424, wherein another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dy.Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal and others reported in (2003)4 SCC 139 was referred and the relevant passage is extracted 19/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 hereunder:

23. By referring to its earlier decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically settled the legal position that the order passed by the 20/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the ground that summoning order was not a reasoned order and that therefore, the process issued to the accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Considering the above, the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, which is devoid of substance, is liable for rejection.

24. As already pointed out, the Sub-Inspector of Police as well as the Inspector of Police of the Surandai Police Station have filed their negative reports by holding that the incident as alleged by the defacto complainant was not at all occurred and hence, the complaint has to be treated as mistake of fact. In the negative reports, both the Investigating Officers have taken a stand that there existed a mud road starting from poromboke odai and the same was in use for several years for agricultural purposes and that the Windmill companies were also using the same for taking their vehicles and that the defacto complainant without raising any objection till the completion of 3/4th of the work of the Windmill, has now raised objections and prevented the Windmill company from using that pathway, so as to force the Windmill 21/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 Companies to approach him and pay money.

25. It is evident from the records that the Sub-Inspector of Police, in the negative report, has stated that he had examined 12 witnesses including the defacto complainant, the then Revenue Inspector and his assistant and except in the statement of the defacto complainant and his assistant Krishnan, it has been recorded in the statements of others that since the defacto complainant had prevented the Windmill people to take their vehicles, there arose wordy quarrel between them, that the first accused was not at all present at that time and that they came to know subsequently that the defacto complainant had done everything for his personal benefit.

26. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second respondent, the defacto complainant has given statement before the jurisdictional Court reiterating his earlier complaint. The defacto complainant has produced 5 witnesses including the then Revenue Inspector and at the time of giving statement, the Tahsildar, Secretary of Kulaiyaneri Panchayat and all of them have given statements reiterating 22/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 the version of the defacto complainant. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second respondent, the Tahsildar – Selvasundari has given a statement that she had accompanied the defacto complainant to the spot, that 13 persons connected with the Wind Mill company were there holding weapons, that they had damaged the water course and laid pathway and that when the same was questioned, they had abused them and caused criminal intimidation. The defacto complainant as well as the Tahsildar have specifically stated that the accused had caused damages to the Oodai to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-.

27. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/ the accused 6 to 13 would submit that original F.I.R., does not contain the names of the accused 6 to 13, but for the first time had implicated the said accused in the protest petition filed in the year 2017 and the statements given in 2018 and that the F.I.R., lodged in 2006 and the various proceedings instituted by the second respondent before various Forums does not refer the names of the accused 6 to 13 nor attributed any criminal act to them.

28. The 11th accused in his original petition would submit that he 23/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 purchased certain lands in Tirunelveli District in 2006 for the purpose of installing Windmills, that the Windmill was duly erected and commissioned for valuable consideration by M/s NEG Micon, a wind turbine manufacturer and installer and their sub-contractors and that subsequently the 11th accused had sold the said land and the said windmill in the year 2017 itself. It is pertinent to note that after the alleged occurrence on 21.03.2006, the Ilanthaikulam agriculturists have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.204 of 2006 against M/s NEG Micon India Private Ltd., and the second accused Subramanian and the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Tirunelveli claiming the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men from in any manner destroying or altering the Kulaiyaneri pottal, Oorani marukal, Oorani and vaikkal and for mandatory injunction for removing the bridge and all the electrical posts installed in the vaikkal and more importantly, the suit was laid on 22.03.2006, the very next day of the alleged occurrence.

29. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second respondent, the plaintiffs who filed the suit in a representative capacity, 24/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 have specifically stated that the defendants 1 and 2 therein had been attempting to damage the water course and attempted to lay a pathway from 21.03.2006 onwards. The second respondent has produced a copy of the Advocate Commissioner's report filed in the suit in O.S.No.204 of 2006, wherein the learned Advocate Commissioner has pointed out that a road was recently laid damaging the water course portions. It is also evident from the records that the defacto complainant has filed a criminal revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.798 of 2013 to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 16.07.2013 passed in C.C.No.192 of 2008, by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sengottai and expunge the remark of acquittal and hold it as honorary acquittal for the defacto complainant, who is the third accused therein and a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2013, has allowed the petition and the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner is acquitted on the benefit of doubt was modified to the effect that the petitioner/accused shall stand acquitted honorarily.

30. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second respondent, in the said order, the learned Judge of this Court has specifically observed that apart from disbelieving the evidence of 25/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3, who did not support the prosecution in the trial, the learned Magistrate considered the defence evidence and found that the accused were discharging their official duties and the entire occurrence had occurred while they were attempting to protect the Odai poromboke from being encroached. Moreoever, the defacto complainant and other witnesses in their statements before the learned Magistrate, has specifically implicated the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence.

31. It is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Others , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court enumerates seven categories of cases where the power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the same are extracted hereunder:

32. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied on by the learned Counsel for the second respondent:

The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Complaint Case No.19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”

( ii) Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs. State (Govt., of NCT of Delhi) and another (2022 SCC Online SC 513):

Hence, this Court concludes that the Criminal Original Petitions are absolutely devoid of the merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.

36. Considering the fact that the case was registered in the year 2006 and P.R.C., is pending from 2019, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate is hereby directed to proceed with the case and dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in case of committal, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli is directed to take the case on file and made over the same to any of the Sessions Court within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the committal order and the Sessions Judge to whom the case is made over, is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months thereafter.

33/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020

37. With the above directions, all the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 35/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

SSL Pre-delivery order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9128 and 18189 of 2019 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.1784 of 2020 Dated: 10.07.2023 36/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis