New Indian-Chennai News + more

Members Login
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: J.J.Y.Arul


Status: Offline
Posts: 24436

Madras High Court
Johnson Yogaraj Arul @ J.J.Y.Arul vs State Rep. By on 6 January, 2016



DATED : 06.01.2016  


Crl.O.P.(MD)No.101 of 2016 
Crl.M.P(MD)No.43 of 2016 

Johnson Yogaraj Arul @ J.J.Y.Arul,
Love and Care 333 India,
13/1A, Srinivasan Street,
Madurai.                                                : Petitioner


1.State Rep. by
   The Inspector of Police,
   Tallakulam Police Station,
   Madurai City,
   (In Crime No.759 of 2015)            : Respondent/Complainant  

   District Child Protection and Welfare Officer,
   District Child Protection and Welfare Unit,
   Plot No.12, 13, 14, Shopping Complex,
   Karthik Nagar,
   Pasupathi Nagar Extension,
   Thapal Thanthi Nagar,
   Madurai.                             : Respondent / De-facto

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
praying to call for the records in connection with the Crime No.759 of 2015
on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same.

!For Petitioner         : Mr.B.Chandramohan  
For Respondent-1        : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran 
                                         Additional Public Prosecutor


The petitioner has come forward with this petition, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.759 of 2015, pending on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running an orphanage in the name of Love and Care Welfare Unit and doing many social welfare activities for the poor and the downtrodden by giving good education along with food and shelter. While so, on 14.06.2015, the second respondent inspected the petitioner's welfare unit and thereafter lodged a vexatious complaint before the first respondent stating that the second respondent officer found nine children in the orphanage and the petitioner has been utilizing the children as servant-maid and the first respondent without conducting preliminarily enquiry has registered the case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 342374 I.P.C. r/w. 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

3. I have heard the counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4.It is unfortunate that a complaint has been lodged against the petitioner, who calls himself as the servant of the God, ought not to have utilised the children as servant-maid. Since the allegations made against the petitioner are all the disputed question of facts and that the children are considered to be equal to God, the disputed facts cannot be gone into by this Court, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HMT Watches Ltd., Vs. M.A.Abida & Another reported in (2015(2) CTC 446), wherein, it has been held that quashing of criminal complaint on the disputed question of facts cannot be entertained and it is a matter for trial to proceed with the criminal complaints. Hence, I find no reason to entertain the relief, as sought for by the petitioner.

5. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.


1.The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai City

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.



Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard