நம்முடன் சிலர் இருக்கிறார்கள் அவர்களை புரட்சிக்காரர்களாகவும் அவர்கள் தான் நம் இனத்தின் மீட்சியாகவும் நினைக்கிறோம். ஆனால் நம்மை பிரித்தாளும் ஆரிய சாதிய வர்க்கத்தை தொடர்ந்து பின்பற்றும் வெங்காயங்கள் இவர்கள்… இந்த வெங்காயங்களை அடையாளம் கண்டு கொள்ளவேண்டியது நமது முதல் பணியாக இருக்க வேண்டும். அதை விடுத்து இவர்கள் தான் தமிழ் சமுகத்தின் ஒரு சாதி பிரிவினர் இல்லை மன்னிக்கவும் ஒரு குடும்ப பிரிவினர் என்றால் நம்மை நாமே செறுப்பால் அடித்துக் கொள்ள வேண்டும்….
சரி யார் இவர் என்பதை தெரிந்து கொள்ளும் முன் அவர் செய்தது என்ன என்பதை பார்க்க வேண்டும்… அதற்கு உதாரணமாக இந்த நீதிமன்றத் தீர்ப்பை படியுங்கள்… புரியும் இவர் யார் என்பதும் எந்த தமிழின எதிரியுடன் நின்றார் என்பது..
1. Why Dr.Subramanian Swamy and Tmt.V.S.Chandralekha were not examined by the investigating officer so as to ascertain the source of telephonic conversation between Tmt Poongothai and Tr.S.K.Upadhyay which was released by the later to the press ?
2. Why the investigating officer has not seized the computer used by Tr.S.Pattan, who is the Personal Assistant to Mr.S.K.Upadhyay at his residence and sent the same for analysis to find out whether he could be the person who had leaked the conversation in question to the press and Television ?
3. Why theinvestigating agency has not seized the server in building No.23 of the DVAC with a view to find out as to whether any person sitting in the office of the confidential branch of DVAC could have accessed the laptop of Thiru S.K.Upadhyay ?
22. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner hinges around both questions of fact and question of law. In so far as the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court is of the considered view that it could very well be agitated before the trial court during the course of trial. In so far as the question of law relating to non granting of sanction of prosecution in respect of Section 72 of Information Technology Act is concerned, the charge sheet levelled against the petitioner cannot be quashed on this ground alone.
23. With regard to the question of facts are concerned, the High Court will not enter into an enquiry of disputed facts or thereafter, hold in favour of the accused. The inherent power cannot be invoked to quash the charge only on the ground of question of facts. This principle is laid down in Maheshwari Oil Mill v. State of Bihar reported in 1978 CrLJ 659.
24. Further the High Court has also no jurisdiction to interfere with the prosecution at the preliminary stage by prejudging the question without affording reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegations. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Bihar v. Raj Narain Singh reported in AIR 1991 SC 1308.
25. Besides this in State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri reported in 1996 CrLJ 1127 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also observed that;
"The Court should not except in extraordinary circumstances exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to quash the prosecution proceedings after they have been launched. The power of quashing a criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, the extraordinary or inherent power does not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice."
26. With regard to the arguments relating to the lodging of complaint by an incompetent person i.e.; by the Principal Secretary Home Department Government of Tamil Nadu as advocated to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this piece of arguments can also be not countenanced for the simple reason as it is left open to the petitioner to put forth before the trial Court during the course of trial.
27. Keeping in view of the observations made above, the decision in M.S.M.Haneefa and others vs. The Forest Ranger, Shencotta Range reported in 1991 Crl.L.J. 712 which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not made applicable in this case.
28. Having regard to the submissions made on either side, and on cursory perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is of firm view that, the question of sanction of prosecution can be taken during the conduct of trial or any such of the proceedings and therefore, the proceedings i.e.; the charge sheet at this stage cannot be quashed on the ground of want of sanction in respect of the Section 72 of Information Technology Act 2000. With this observation, the petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
இது மட்டுமல்ல இன்னும் இருக்கிறது..