Madras High Court
Sathasivan vs The State.Rep.By on 18 February, 2019
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.15395 and 1523 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2012
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15395 of 2012:
1.Sathasivan
2.T.Bahalsubramanian
3.Suyambu
4.Thirupathi
5.Suresh
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State.Rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Rajakkamangalam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
2.T.Udhaya Kumar
... Respondents
PRAYER: The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records
relating to the case in C.C.No.56 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, quash the same.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1523 of 2011:
1.Stephen
2.Selvakumar
3.Ragavaiah
4.Stephen Sahaya Prasath
5.Ramesh Kumar
6.Kanagaraj
7.Kumar
8.Murugesan
9.Mohan
10.Muthukrishnan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
11.Kuselamani
12.Gnanasekaran
13.Chandrakumar
14.Pasupathi
15.Suresh
16.Ponraj
17.Muthulingam
18.Thangakumar
19.Rajendran
20.L.A.S.Pandian
21.Rajendran
22.Murugan
23.Gangatharan
24.Jeyakannan
25.Iyyappan
26.Thilainathan
27.Lingeswaran
28.Thangaraj
29.Manikandan
30.Ramalingam
31.Murugesan
32.Arikandan
33.Selva Lingam
34.Shenbaga Raja Boopathi @ Babu
35.Diwahar
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State.Rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Rajakkamangalam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
2.T.Udhaya Kumar
... Respondents
PRAYER: The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records
relating to the case in C.C.No.56 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore
For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu, APP for R1
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the case in C.C.No.56 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.
2.There were disputes between two rival groups in the administration of Kamaraj Polytechnic College, Pazhavilai, pursuant to which, on 25.03.2009, it is alleged that Sathasivan (A1) and 39 others assaulted T.Udhayakumar (P.W.1) and Suyambu (P.W.2) and caused injuries to them.
3.On the complaint lodged by T.Udayakumar (P.W.1), the Police registered a case in Crime No.59 of 2009 and after completing the investigation filed Final Report in C.C.No.56 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil for the offences under Sections 147, 447, 427, 324, 323 r/w 149 IPC against 40 accused.
4.Similarly, on the complaint lodged by Thangakumar, a case in Crime No.91 of 2009 was registered and the same was closed as mistake of fact. Against which, Thangakumar has filed a filed protest application before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.
5.While so, the accused in C.C.No.56 of 2010 are before this Court for quashing the prosecution.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 6,Learned counsel for the petitioners / accused submitted that the Police have falsely implicated the staff members, Lecturers and employees of the said College. He contended that the main accused Sathasivan has died and therefore, the prosecution is an abuse of process of law.
7.Per contra, Mr.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for T.Udhaya Kumar submitted that though in the First Information Report only 11 persons were named, subsequently, in the 161(3) statement of witnesses, all the 40 accused have been named. He further contended that even in the protest application which has been filed by Thangakumar in Crime No.91 of 2009 he has mentioned the names of the majority of the accused, who were involved in this case.
8.This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
9.There are specific overt-acts against A1 to A6 and the others are being implicated with the aid of Section 149 IPC since they were part of the unlawful assembly. Thus, when there are prima facie materials in the final report, wherein the names of the 40 accused find place, the prosecution cannot be quashed at the threshold. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since T.Udayakumar (P.W.1) is an Advocate in Nagercoil, interest of justice will be served, if the case is transferred to the adjoining district. There appears to be much force in the submission of the learned http://www.judis.nic.in 5 counsel for the petitioners.
10.In the result, the quash petitions are dismissed. However, all the petitioners / accused are directed to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, in C.C.No.56 of 2010, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and execute a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. for Rs.5,000/- without sureties. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil is directed to transfer the entire case records to the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, within a period of two weeks thereafter. All the accused in C.C.No.56 of 2010 shall further give an undertaking that they will appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, on the date fixed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, so that fresh summons need be sent to the accused by the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. If any of the accused fails to appear either before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil or the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, a fresh FIR can be registered against them under Section 229(A) IPC and they can be remanded to custody. The Criminal Original petitions are closed. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.
18.02.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
nbj
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 P.N.PRAKASH,J.
nbj Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.15395 and 1523 of 2012 18.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in