Madras High Court
Thanka Nadar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 January, 2018
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.787 of 2017
Thanka Nadar ... Petitioner / De-facto complainant
-Vs.-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Inspector of Police,
Karungal,
Kanyakumari District.
2.Arul
3.Johnson
4.Dennis
5.Vishnu
6.Justin
7.Vincent
8.Shaji ... Respondents / Accused
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case - filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records and to set aside the order of the Principal District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel passed in C.C.No.309 of 1998 dated
22.10.2008 and allow the above Criminal Revision Case.
!For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sree Kumaran Nair
^For R-1 : Mr.M.Asokan
Government Advocate
For R-2 to R-8 : No appearance
:ORDER
The case of the prosecution is that on 09.01.1997, the accused herein, who are the relatives of the petitioner / defacto-complainant, had assaulted the defacto-complainant at 10.30 p.m. and had caused injuries to the defacto- complainant and also had taken away his table phone, half Sovereign gold ring and other articles valued at Rs.75,000/-. On the complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.9 of 1997 was registered on the file of the first respondent under Sections 147, 448, 427 and 379 I.P.C.. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.309 of 1998 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. The accused appeared before the Court and they were furnished with the copies of relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and charges were framed. From 1998 to 2008, there was absolutely no progress in the trial Court and ultimately, one witness, namely, Dhamodharan, Retired Police Constable was examined and four documents were marked. The accused were acquitted by the trial Court by order dated 22.10.2008. Challenging the acquittal, the petitioner / defacto complainant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case with a delay of 42 days and the delay was condoned in the year 2017 and the appeal has been numbered.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner / defacto complainant submitted that the trial Court had not taken any steps to send summons to the defacto-complainant for his examination.
3. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Admittedly, the accused and the defacto-complainant were relatives and it is alleged that the incident had taken place in the year 1997. The accused has been acquitted in the year 2008, that is only after 11 years. We are now in the year 2018.
5. In such view of the matter taking into consideration, the nature of the allegations and other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to set aside the order passed by the trial Court in the year 2008. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
To The Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.
.