Madras High Court
S.Krishnaraj vs The State Represented By on 7 July, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019
S.Krishnaraj ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Perambalur,
Perambalur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Arumbavoor Police Station,
Perambalur District.
Crime No.214 of 2015
3.Jayanthy ..Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records relating to P.R.C.No.3 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Perambalur and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For R1 and R2 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019
For R3 : No appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed by one Krishnaraj a practising Advocate at Perambalur. He was arrayed as 6th accused in the supplementary charge sheet filed in Crime No.214 of 2015. He is before this Court to quash the complaint against him which culminated in P.R.C.No.3 of 2016 and thereafter, taken as Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2019, on the file of the District Sessions Judge / Special Court of SC/ST Cases, Perambalur.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that on 01.08.2015, the First Information Report was registered by the respondent police under Sections 341, 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC based on the complaint given by one Jayanthi against five named accused and five other known persons of Poolambadi but name not known. After taking up the investigation, the charges were altered and reported to the learned Magistrate on 04.09.2015 by including Section 3(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Even in the alteration report, the petitioner name was not shown as accused. However in the final report filed on 31.01.2016, the petitioner name is shown as the 6th accused Page 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019 with a specific overt act that on the date of occurrence i.e., on 01.08.2015, Shanmugam, the husband of the defacto complainant was tied in a electrical pole and he was insulted by abusing his caste and they also attacked him by hand and stick. When the police tried to rescue the said Shanmugam, this petitioner prevented them from rescuing him and he was the person who instigated the others to tie Shanmugam in the electrical pole.
3. The petitioner contended that till 04.09.2015, there was no allegations of the presence of the petitioner or his involvement in the alleged offence. He being an Advocate by profession and a distant relative of the other accused represent them in the police station. He questioned the police for not taking appropriate action against Shanmugam who misbehaved with one Rangavalli W/o Jayaraman. Hence he had been falsely implicated based on the alleged 161(3) statement given by Shanmugam. In fact the real culprit in this case Shanmugam was later arrested by the police and remanded to the custody for misbehaving with one Rangavalli W/o.Jayaraman.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring the F.I.R., given by Page 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019 the Wife of Shanmugam and her 161(3) statement besides the statement of one Balamurugan submitted that the inclusion of the petitioner as one of the accused with a malafide intention would be apparently seen.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the F.I.R., wife of Shanmugam has not said anything about the presence of the petitioner. In the alteration report which was prepared on 04.09.2015 and filed on 08.09.2015, there is no reference about the presence of the petitioner or his overt act. Whereas, for the first time in the statement of Shanmugam purported to have been recorded on 04.09.2015, the petitioner has been implicated as one of the accused. In the alleged statement of Shanmugam, it is stated that Krishnaraj, Advocate instigated others to tie him in the electrical pole and also he slapped on his cheek. Thereafter, all the accused abused him and insulted him calling his caste name.
6. The statement of Balamurugan was recorded on 04.09.2015, who is the Grade.I Constable attached to Arumbavur Police Station. In his statement, there is no whisper about the presence of the petitioner or his alleged act of preventing the police from discharging their duty namely rescuing the said Page 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019 Shanmugam from his bond with the electrical pole. Harping on the statement of one Prabu recorded on the same day i.e., on 04.09.2015 that the petitioner refused to untie the said Shanmugam from the electric pole and quarrelled with the police and he has recorded the same in his cell phone, the prosecution has included him as A-6, however the said statement of Prabu is unbelievable and to be rejected in toto, since there is no such CD as claimed in the statement was recovered from the said witness Prabu.
7. This Court after verifying the contradictory statements particularly when the Police Constable has not spoken about anything regarding the presence of the petitioner and the overt act while they rescued the Shanmugam, the statement of Prabu says otherwise and also claims he has recorded the incident in his cell phone. Therefore called for the file. The file does not contain any such CD. The police has filed the final report and in the final report also there is no annexure of the alleged CD. The S.S.I attached to the respondent police has given a letter to the Public Prosecutor stating that no CD referred in the statement of Prabu recovered during investigation nor filed before the Court.
8. In the light of the above facts and the statement of the victim Page 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019 Shanmugam as found and recorded on 04.09.2015 who named the petitioner but not spoken anything about his act of preventing the police from rescuing the alleged participation of the petitioner though disclosed in the statement recorded on 04.09.2015, but while filing the alteration report the prosecution has not whispered about the petitioner herein and the police constable who rescued the Shanmugam had also not spoken about the presence of the petitioner in his statement which happened to be recorded on 04.09.2015. The final report and the evidence relied by the prosecution therefore, cannot be sufficient to frame any charge against the petitioner. Hence this Court finds merit in this petition to quash. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The case against the petitioner in Crime No.214 of 2015 culminated in Spl.C.C.No.24 of 2019 is quashed.
07.07.2022
Index : Yes/No 1/2
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rpl
To,
Page 6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019
1.The District Sessions Special Judge of SC/ST, Perambalur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perambalur, Perambalur District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Arumbavoor Police Station, Perambalur District.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
Page 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019 rpl Crl.O.P.No.1988 of 2019 07.07.2022 Page 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis