Madras High Court
Ravichandran vs State Rep. By
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 01.07.2015 Delivered on : 08.07.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL.O.P.No.14890 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1,2 of 2015 Ravichandran ... Petitioner Versus 1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kavandapadi Police Station, Erode District. 2.A.Subash Swaminathan ... Respondents Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in PRC.No.21 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam and quash the entire proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gopinath For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor [for R1] : Ms.J.Madhuri [for R2] O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.21 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent; the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the materials placed on record.
3. On a complaint lodged by Subash, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.154 of 2014 under Section 147, 371, 294b, 324, 506[ii] IPC read with Section 3 of TNPPDL Act 1992, against 5 persons and after completing the investigation, filed a Final Report in PRC.No.21 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate II, Gobichettipalayam, challenging which Ravichandran [A5] has filed this petition for quashing the prosecution.
4. The case of the prosecution is that Ravichandran [A5] is running Savarimuthu Aruldoss Memorial Trust and had collected deposits from various persons in and around the Village, promising to give high interest. Subash [defacto complainant] had invested some money in the establishment of Ravichandran [A5] and had lost. The defacto complainant has also filed a Public Interest Litigation before this Court against Ravichandran [A5], which is said to be pending.
5. The defacto complainant and some others decided to make public announcement exhorting people not to invest in Ravichandran's establishment and lose their hard earned money. On 06.07.2014, they were going around by their vehicle, TN 33 AF 1012, for sticking posters around the village at 12.30 in the night, about 4 persons rallied them and attacked the defacto complainant and his companion. During the attack, they warned the defacto complainant not to put up such posters against Ravichandran and declared that they were set up by Ravichandran [A5]. Hence, on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, police registered the case as aforesaid and now filed Final Report before the jurisdictional court.
6. Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that except the statement of the co-accused, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the offences. He submitted that the statement given by the assailant is a hearsay and is inadmissible.
7. This Court is unable to concur with this submission because, anything said by the accused during the course of the transaction would be relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and the same can be spoken to by the witnesses who heard them say. Whether that by itself would be sufficient for convicting the accused is a question that has to be left to the Trial Court to decide in the backdrop of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that this petitioner absconded immediately after the incident and his whereabouts were not known. He also submitted that there are several other criminal cases pending against this petitioner.
9. It is seen that when the defacto complainant and his companion were pasting posters against this petitioner, the said incident has taken place. Thereafter, the petitioner absconded which is a powerful circumstance under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Of course, abscondance by itself cannot lead to the inference that the absconder had the necessary mens rea. But, this Court cannot ignore the factum of abscondance and quash the prosecution at the threshold. The materials on record shows that there is sufficient motive and just becasue the petitioner was not in the scene of occurrence, this Court cannot quash the prosecution.
10. It may be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinodh Raghuvanshi Vs Ajay Arora and Others, it is held as follows:
"When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither the Court can embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor the Court should judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. Moreso, the charge-sheet filed or charges framed at the initial stage can be altered/amended or a charge can be added at the subsequent stage, after the evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of Section 216, Cr.P.C. Court should not "kill a still born child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance.
11. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that even after the Final Report was filed, the petitioner refused to even receive summons issued by the Trial Court and therefore, the summons had to be stuck on the door of the respondents by the police.
12. In the result, this petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.07.2015 gya To
1.The Inspector of Police, Kavandapadi Police Station, Erode District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH, J., gya Order made in CRL.O.P.No.14890 of 2015 08.07.2015