Madras High Court
Raja @ Rocket Raja vs The State Represented By on 27 August, 2018
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.08.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl OP(MD)No.12907 of 2018 and CrlMP(MD)No.5857 of 2018 Raja @ Rocket Raja @ Arumugapandiyan @ Vivegananthan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Station, Tirunelveli District. [Crime No.161 of 2018] 2.Chinnappan ...Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to admit this quash petition on file, to call for the records in Crime No.161 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Station, Tirunelveli District and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondent No.1 : Ms.S.Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl Side) :ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR pending in Crime No.161 of 2018.
2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Police have registered an FIR in Crime No.161 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 353 IPC and Section 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1984. Subsequently, the FIR was altered into for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 353, 120(B), 109, 34 IPC r/w 4 of TNPPDL Act.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR and the petitioner has been roped in this case only based on the alleged confession made by A-1 and A-2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner was produced before the Court by way of PT warrant in another case. At that point of time, the respondent Police wanted to arrest the petitioner in the present case also. The learned Judicial Magistrate- III, Tirunelveli rejected the remand of the petitioner through PT warrant on the ground that the petitioner has been roped in the case only based on the confession of the co-accused. The learned Counsel would further submit that there is no chance for the petitioner being involved in the alleged offence in this case.
4.The learned Government Advocate would submit that there are totally eight accused persons in this case and the part played by the petitioner has been spoken to in the confession statements given by A-1 and A-2. The case is at the stage of investigation and based on the confession, the respondent Police have found some more materials and the final report will be filed shortly by the respondent Police. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that at this juncture, this petition to quash FIR should not be entertained.
5.It is true a person cannot be made as an accused merely based on the confession made by the co-accused. However, this principle of law will not apply when the case is at the stage of FIR. In many of the cases, it is only based on the confession of the accused, the investigation proceeds further and material facts are found out during further investigation. In the present case, admittedly there is a confession made by A-1 and A-2 with regard to the role played by the petitioner. The respondent Police is investigating the case based on the confession and the materials that are going to be placed against the petitioner will be known only at the stage of filing of the final report.
6.Therefore, at this point of time, this Court cannot entertain this petition to quash the FIR. The petitioner can reserve all the points and await till the final report is filed by the respondent Police. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the respondent Police will file a final report within a period of three weeks.
7.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Police to file a final report within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the issues that are raised by the petitioner can be raised at the appropriate time and it is all left open. Consequently, CrlMP(MD)No.5857 of 2018 is closed.
To
1.The Inspector of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.