Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Raviraja vs The State Represented By on 13 October, 2017

Author: S.S.Sundar

Bench: S.S.Sundar

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 13.10.2017  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR           
                                                                        
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13894 of 2017 
and 
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9331 and 9332  


1.Raviraja
2.Ambigapathi 
3.Bhuvaneswaran  
4.Nallusamy, S/o.Palaniappan 
5.Sivakumar 
6.M.C.Perumal  
7.M.R.Nagarajan 
8.Murugesan  
9.Chandrasekaran  
10.Kuppusamy   
11.Ramesh  
12.Lakshmanan  
13.Ramesh  
14.Saravanan 
15.Murugesan  
16.Ilayaraja
17.Lakshmanan  
18.P.K.A.Karthik
19.Nallusamy, S/o.Doraisamy  
20.Govindan 
21.Kalairaja
22.Periasamy 
23.Malayalan 
24.Pandiyarajan 
25.Stalin
26.G.Sivasakthi
27.Parthiban
28.Kanagaraj 
29.Sundaresan  
30.Paramasivam  
31.Nandakumar  
32.M.K.Samvel  
33.M.Mani 
34.Ilavarasan
35.V.Palanisamy  
36.J.Muthamilselvan 
37.M.Gunasekaran  
38.P.Pandian 
39.Thirumalai Natarajan
40.M.Subramani  
41.Arumugam   
42.Thangarasu 
43.Manickam  
44.R.Anbumani  
45.Sivakumar 
46.V.Vairamani 
47.M.Dhandapani  
48.P.Shanmugasundaram    
49.Arumugam   
50.A.Maheswaran  
51.Senthilkumar S/o.Pitchai
52.M.Senthilkumar, S/o.Manickam   
53.L.Mariappan 
54.Raja
55.Ravichandran 
56.Mohammed Rafi   
57.R.Rajasekaran 
58.P.Raghupathi 
59.M.N.Rajappan  
60.Anbarasu                             ...Petitioners / A1 to A60

1.Rajeshwari
2.Muthulakshmi                  ... Petitioners / A1 and A2                             
                                        (Women Accused)   

-Vs-
1.The State represented by
   The Inspector of Police,
   Mayanoor Police Station,
   Karur District.
   (in Crime No.111/2016)               ... 1st Respondent /                    
                                                Complainant 

2.M.Karthikeyan                 ... 2nd Respondent / De-facto                   
                                        Complainant 
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to charge sheet in
C.C.No.294 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Kulithalai, Karur District and quash the same.


!For Petitioners        :Mr.M.Bindran
^For R1         :Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian         
                                         Additional Public Prosecutor



:ORDER  

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.294 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kulithalai, Karur District.

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

3.The petitioners are the named accused in the charge sheet filed against them in C.C.No.294 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kulithalai, Karur District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188 and 285 IPC.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the complaint that was registered in Cr.No.111 of 2016 is on the basis of information that was given by the Village Administrative Officer, on 07.04.2016. On the complaint, it was only stated that the de-facto complainant has come to know about the protest organized by the first petitioner and others to set fire on the effigy of a political leader.

5.It is not the case of the de-facto complainant that the first petitioner and others have actually accomplished by setting fire on the effigy of the political dignitary on the date as it was proposed. The information that was furnished by the Village Administrative Officer alone is reflected in the First Information Report. Even in the charge sheet, it is stated that the petitioners and others made an attempt to set fire on the effigy. It appears that the petitioners were arrested immediately after the complaint that was lodged by the Village Administrative Officer. As per the charge sheet, the statement of the Village Administrative Officer is the only evidence collected by the respondent police and shows that the petitioners were prevented, when they tried to set ablaze the effigy of the political dignitary.

6.In such circumstances, no cognizable offence is made out from the complaint as well as from the charge sheet. Hence this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet in C.C.No.294 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kulithalai, Karur District, as against the petitioners is quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Mayanoor Police Station, Karur District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kulithalai, Karur District.

.