Madras High Court
Ramakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 24 January, 2019
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.16041 and 19589 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.7110, 7111, 8919 and 8920 of 2018
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16041 of 2018:-
Ramakrishnan : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
A.Mukkulam Police Station,
Viruthunagar District.
(Cr.No.89 of 2015)
2.Senthur Selvam : Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the charge sheet against the
petitioner in P.R.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Aruppukottai, dated 05.01.2016 for the alleged offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 506(ii)
of IPC r/w Section 4 of Women Harassment Act r/w Section 3(1) of
TNPPDL Act.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu
For R1 : Mr.Robinson
Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19589 of 2018:-
1.Pitchai
2.Palani
3.Karunakaran
4.Deivam @ Deivendran
5.Sampath
6.Raman
7.Lingam
8.Mathiyavarnam
9.Karuppasamy
10.Kannan
11.Tamilselvan
12.Chandran
13.Irulandi
14.Muthukumar
15.Selvam
16.Muthuraman
17.Palanisamy
18.Dinesh
19.Subramanian
20.Arumugam
21.Muthazhagu
S/o.Irulandi
22.Muthurathinam
23.Veeranan
24.Alagumalaikannan
25.Ganesan
26.Muthazhagu
S/o.Ponnu Thevar
27.Santhanam
28.Velusamy : Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
A.Mukkulam Police Station,
Viruthunagar District.
(Cr.No.89 of 2015)
2.Senthur Selvam : Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the charge sheet against the
petitioner in P.R.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Aruppukottai, dated 05.01.2016 for the alleged offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 506(ii)
of IPC r/w Section 4 of Women Harassment Act r/w Section 3(1) of
TNPPDL Act.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu
For R1 : Mr.Robinson
Government Advocate
***
COMMON ORDER
These petitions are filed to to quash the charge sheet against the petitioners in P.R.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai, dated 05.01.2016.
2.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that a false case has been lodged due to a dispute regarding the administration of a temple. He would further submit that the entire http://www.judis.nic.in 4 case of the prosecution is a fabricated one. He further submits that in the very initial document, that is in the accident register, the de-facto complainant has spoken about the involvement of only three persons, whereas, in the FIR, names of 36 persons have been falsely implicated. He would further submit that earlier two statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded from the de-facto complainant. At that time nothing had been spoken about the involvement of the petitioners. However, after 85 days, another further statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which the involvement of the petitioners have been brought in. He further submits that it is the clear case of false complaint as an after though only to harass the petitioners and the dispute is only with regard to the administration of temple.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that these are all matters for evidence, which can be appreciated only during trial by adducing evidence.
5.This Court is of the opinion that the points raised by petitioners can be raised before the trial Court at the appropriate stage and thereby, this petitions are dismissed. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
6.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court may be dispensed with.
7.Accepting the said submission, the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that they shall be be duly represented by Counsel on all hearing dates and that they shall appear before the committal Court till the case is committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, they shall appear before the trial Court for receiving charge sheet, for initial questioning and for answering the charges, at the time of questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and passing judgment.
7.The petitioners are further directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit that the Counsel representing them will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined in chief. The petitioners shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses. The petitioners shall appear before the Court in the event, if their presence is insisted by the trial Judge for the purpose of identification. If the petitioners adopt any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the trial http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Court to insist for their appearance and deal with the petitioners in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Shambunath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.
8.Accordingly, the criminal original petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.01.2019
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
cmr
To
The Inspector of Police,
A.Mukkulam Police Station,
Viruthunagar District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
cmr
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.16041 and 19589 of 2018 24.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in