HC says criminal cases are not PILs, rejects prisoners forum plea

Justice N Anand Venkatesh said, “If this practice of allowing a third party to involve in a criminal case is permitted in a casual manner, a meddlesome bystander can easily decide to attack a person who has been held to be not guilty by a Subordinate Court, by initiating a frivolous proceeding and thereby cause irretrievable injury to the life and liberty of the accused person.”

“Even under the Code of Criminal Procedure, while granting right to file an appeal against an acquittal, the legislature thought it fit to circumscribe this right by imposing a condition to seek leave before entertaining the appeal. The fetters so imposed on the right to appeal is prompted by the reluctance to expose a person, who has been acquitted by a competent Court,” the judge said.

In 2004, a remand prisoner Subramaniam died in judicial custody. An enquiry by the Sub Divisional Magistrate acted against V Karupannan, Jail (in charge), Chennai Central Prison (Remand), C Rathan, Assistant Jailer and C Manickam, former Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Human Rights Commission.

An enquiry report was submitted before the District Collector and pursuant to the same, Government of Tamil Nadu vide its G.O.Ms.No.1821, dated 28.11.2007, decided to initiate criminal and departmental proceedings against the three persons.

A complaint was filed before the CMM, Egmore, by the SDM. However, the CMM, after considering the materials concluded that no offence has been made against the accused and dismissed the complaint on June 30, 2014. This order was challenged by the PRF represented by its Director P. Pugalenthi.

Justice Anand Venkatesh while dismissing the plea, said “This Court does not want to go into the various legal issues raised before this Court on the procedure followed by the Magistrate while dealing with the complaint, since this Court is dismissing this petition on the ground that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain the petition and also on the ground that this Court did not find any materials to interfere with the order passed by the CMM, Egmore.”