The said petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to expunge the remarks made against the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.C.Nos.82 & 83 of 2013, respectively, dated 29.03.2016. The case of Anshul Mishra v. District Collector and others was heard by Justice B. Pugalendhi.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner in the present case had made written and oral submissions, while the respondents were insisting on adjournment with regard to the July 13 notification.
By the said orders dated 29.03.2016, the learned Magistrate, dismissed the complaints filed by the District Collector, Madurai, for his non-appearance under Section 256 CrPC. and acquitted the respondents / accused from the charges. Apart from the aforesaid offence, the complaints were also filed to confiscate the multi-colour granite blocks seized from the respondent’s / accused’s land in Keelayur Village, Melur Taluk; and to dispose of the granite blocks as provided under Section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Aggrieved over the same, the State has preferred the criminal appeals.
While dismissing the complaints, the learned Magistrate has also made certain observations that Mr. Anshul Mishra, IAS., the then District Collector, Madurai, has filed the complaints in his official capacity as District Collector, Madurai, but, as on the date of lodging of the complaint, he is not the District Collector, Madurai and thereby, committed the offence under Sections 181, 182, 193 & 199 IPC. The learned Magistrate further observed that the learned Special Public Prosecutors have also aided the complainant in the said offence and therefore, directed the Head Clerk to lodge a complaint under Section 197(1b) CrPC., after getting appropriate orders from the Government.
Aggrieved over the aforesaid observations made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, in C.C.Nos.82 & 83 of 2013, dated 29.03.2016, Mr. Anshul Mishra, IAS., the then District Collector, Madurai, has filed Crl. OP.(MD)Nos. 7655 & 7656 of 2016, to expunge the remarks made against him.
Arguments Before the Court
Learned counsel for the petitioner in the original petitions submitted that he has already filed his written submissions and the respondents in these cases are only formal parties. He also submits that even there is no material to show that the District Collector has signed the complaint ante dated, but the learned Judicial Magistrate has observed, as if the complaint was filed ante dated. He also submits that it is not even the case of the accused that the complaint was filed ante dated and not even a suggestion was made to the officers, who were examined as a prosecution witnesses in these cases.
The learned State Public Prosecutor, submits that if the appeals are remanded back to the trial Court for further trial, automatically the impugned orders will dissolve and there is no further order required in these petitions.
Court’s Orders
The impugned orders dated 29.03.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, in C.C.Nos.82 & 83 of 2013, dismissing the complaint under Section 256 CrPC. is remitted back to the trial Court for the limited purpose of examining the complainant / District Collector, Madurai and to decide the issue. The observations made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur as against the petitioner / District Collector and the learned Special Public Prosecutors also stand expunged. In fine, both the criminal appeals and the criminal original petitions were allowed.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
