“As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor , the police standing order is a guidelines for the investigating officer how to conduct investigation, particularly, when there is a case and case in counter, it is not necessarily one complaint must be accepted and other must be rejected and there can be only one charge.” These were stated by the single bench of Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran in the case of T.Nagaraj v. State through Inspector of Police
The petitioner herein T.Nagaraj is a practicing Advocate and member of the Bar Association, Tuticorin. The second respondent R.Jeyapal, aged about 72 years, is also an Advocate and member of the Bar Association, Tuticorin. On 22.02.2017 at about 10.10 a.m., the second respondent/defacto complainant and his son Aldrin Marshal went to the Bar Association building and abused the petitioner in filthy language and questioning him how the absconding accused can come to bar and started attacking the petitioner with iron rod. He was intimidated by them that he will face death if he come to the Court Complex. The advocates, who were in the Bar Association room, rescued the petitioner and sent him to Tuticorin Government Hospital. On intimation from the Government Hospital, the first respondent police received the complaint from the petitioner and registered a case against Jeyapaul, his son Aldrin Earmarshal and Subbu Muthuramalingam for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC. In this case, the complaint of the petitioner herein has been investigated and final report has already been filed against the second respondent and two others in C.C.No.121 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.
A unique submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the language used under Section 294(b) IPC is whoever to the annoyance of others does any obscene act in any public place, or sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place. When there is no public within the bar association room, the alleged utterance made by the petitioner herein will not fall under the definition of Section 294(b) IPC. This submission is extension of the arguments that the bar association is not a public place. The said argument is nothing but the manifestly erroneous assumption in the minds of a few advocates that they are above all laws and they are immune from all laws. It is not necessary when annoyance caused all present there should jointly give the complaints, it is sufficient if any one among there can set law in motion.
Thus, the single bench of Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran dismissed this Criminal Original petition by stating complaint of the second respondent, which has been investigated and completed against the petitioner herein and taken on file as C.C.No.122 of 2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai has to be tried together with the case registered, investigated and charge sheeted by the first respondent and now transferred, renumbered and taken on file as C.C.No.121/2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Since the final report against the petitioner herein has not only made out, a case to be tried for offence under Section 294(b) IPC., but also under 506(i) IPC.
Judgement reviewed by Himanshu Ranjan