Madras High Court
P.Chandrasekaran vs Rajavelu on 21 March, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 21.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.No.4108 of 2018
1. P.Chandrasekaran
2. P.Velu
3. S.Rajan
4. R.Chellamuthu
5. M.Sakthivel
6. B.Marimuthu
7. Pushpa
8. Balasubramaniyam
9. K. Kendiya @ Palanisamy
10. K. Rajamanickam
...Petitioners
Vs.
1. Rajavelu
2. The State rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Rural Police Station,
Tiruchengode.
...Respondents
The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
19.12.2017 in C.M.P.No.7563 of 2015 in C.C.No.315 of 2010 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.T.Tamilvel
For Respondents : Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna For R1
Mr.R.Ravichandran For R2
Govt. Advocate (Crl. side)
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order dated 19.12.2017 in C.M.P.No.7563 of 2015 in C.C.No.315 of 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.
2. Based on the complaint given by the first respondent before the second respondent Police, they have registered a case against the revision petitioners/accused for the offence under under sections 147, 148 and 427 IPC. After registering a case and investigation, the second respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode and the same was taken up on file in C.C.No.315 of 2010.
3. During the trial, the learned Magistrate has examined the witnesses and the second respondent Police filed a petition in http://www.judis.nic.in 3 C.M.P.No.7563 of 2015 to alter the charges.
4. From the evidence of P.W.1/defacto complainant and after perusing the materials, the learned Magistrate has allowed the petition and altered the charges for the offence under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property of Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992 and transferred the case to the Session Court. Against which, the respondent therein/accused has filed the present revision before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the case was registered against the revision petitioners, only for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 379 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer has laid a charge sheet only for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 427 of IPC, there was no materials for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, therefore, the first respondent/defacto complainant has not challenged the charge sheet and neither he filed any revision case nor he filed any protest petition for further investigation. The charge sheet filed before the Magistrate was also taken on file as it is without any protest petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
6. During the trial, after examination of all the witnesses, the first respondent/defacto complainant has filed the petition before the learned Magistrate, Tiruchengode to alter the charge for the offence under Sections 379 and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. After completion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode has come to the conclusion that some other offence has taken place and some other accused have also involved in this case. The other accused should also be impleaded for the above said offences, whereas the learned Magistrate has not taken suo moto action on them. Only the complaint filed by the first respondent/defacto complainant was considering as against law. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Tiruchengode without his jurisdiction warrants interference.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that he has filed the counter affidavit in this matter.
8. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the learned Magistrate has clearly considered the evidence of P.W.1 and also recorded the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. http://www.judis.nic.in 5 by the Police during the investigation and the petition avernments made in the respondent before the Magistrate and found that there is a prima facie materials available for the offence under Section TNPPDL Act, since it is triable by the Sessions Court. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode has allowed the C.M.P.No.7563 of 2015 in C.C.No.315 of 2010.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the first and second respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
10. On a perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the first respondent has lodged a complaint before the second respondent. Based on the complaint, the second respondent has registered a case against the revision petitioners/accused in crime No.320 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 379 of IPC. After investigation, the second respondent Police laid a charge sheet for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 427 not for the offence under Sections 379 and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in which, the learned Magistrate has taken the case on file and tried and the witnesses were examined. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
11. The first respondent filed a petition in C.M.P.No.7536 of 2015 for alteration of additional charges for the offence under Section 379 and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. On reading of the materials and also 161 of Cr.P.C. statement made before the Investigation Officer, it reveals that the offences have made out for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 3(1) of TNPPDL.
12. The learned Magistrate has allowed the petition and altered the offences under Section 379 and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Considering the legal positions and also the evidence of P.W.1 and also their statements recorded by the Investigation Officer, the learned Magistrate altered the offence and committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge.
13. Therefore, on perusing the order passed by the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any perversity. However after altering the charges, one more opportunity would be given to the revision petitioners to defend their case. Therefore, the defence taken by the revision petitioner/accused cannot be gone into and the probative value of the evidence cannot be looked into at this stage. The petitioners are at at liberty to file appropriate petition before the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 learned Sessions Judge within the stipulated time if so desires.
14. With the above reasons, this Court does not find any reason with the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Tiruchengode in C.M.P.No.7503 of 2015 in C.C.No.315 of 2010 dated 19.12.2017. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
21.03.2019
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non speaking order
rli
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.
2. The JSub Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Tiruchengode.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN, J., rli Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.4108 of 2018 21.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in