Madras High Court
Jegan vs The State Rep.By on 8 July, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.Nos.8566 & 8567 of 2020
Jegan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Ambur Town Police Station,
Vellore District.
Presently Thirupattur District.
2.Zuber Ahmed ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in C.C.No.37 of
2020, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Ambur and quash the same against the petitioner/A12 alone.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.N.V.N.Margandeyan
ORDER
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020 This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.37 of 2020, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.10.2017, the defacto complainant closed the Company for Diwali holiday viz., 18.10.2017 & 19.10.2017 and thereafter, on 20.10.2017, when he opened the Company, it was found that the skins were missing. On verification of the CCTV Footage, it came to light that the night watchman, along with the other accused persons, had stolen the skins and loaded it into TATA ACE four wheeler. The total number of skins was about 621 and its length 12027 sq.ft. and it values at Rs.15,41,683/-.
3. There are totally 12 accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A12. After registration of the FIR, the 1st respondent completed the investigation and filed final report and the case had taken cognizance in C.C.No.37 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur.
2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner's name was not found in the FIR and all of a sudden, his name has been included in the final report as 12th accused. There was no allegation as against the petitioner. In fact no confession statement of co-accused to implicate the petitioner herein, is available. The respondent examined 26 witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. No one has spoken about the role played by the petitioner in the alleged occurrence and there was no whisper about the petitioner's participation in the crime. That apart, there was no material against the petitioner to implicate him as an accused for the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 34 of IPC. The charge sheet revealed that the petitioner assisted the 5th accused to commit the alleged offence.
5. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that there are 12 accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that there are 12 accused and the petitioner is arrayed as A12. There are specific allegation as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 34 of IPC. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only during the trial, since, it is a mixed 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020 question of fact. The CCTV footages shows the presence of the petitioner at the time of occurrence. Though the petitioner was not identified by the witnesses, his presence is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution rightly implicated him as an accused.
6. Heard Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.N.V.N.Margendeyan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
7. There are totally 12 accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A12. Even according to the prosecution, the 1st accused was working a night watchman of the company viz., Faridha Classic Shoe Company. On 18.10.2017, the 1st accused alleged that A5, A7 and A10 were entered into the company and on 19.10.2017, the 1st accused alleged that A2, A3, A4, A6 and A8 to steel the skins from the Company through Gate No.5. Therefore, they were charged for the offence under Section 457 of IPC. A1, A5, A7 and A10 had stolen the skins numbering about 291 and A1, A3, A4, A6 and A8 had stolen about 330 skins in total 621 worth about Rs.15,41,863/- and as such, 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020 they were charged for the offence under Section 380 of IPC. To commit the offence by A5, A9, A11 and the petitioner herein/A12 assisted them to steal the skins. Therefore, all the accused persons were charged for the offence under Sections 457, 380 read with 34 of IPC.
8. Though the petitioner has been added as an accused for the offence under Section 457, 380 and read with 34 of IPC alleging that he assisted A5 while committing the offence, there was no whisper about the overt act while perusing the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent pointed out that LW4, who identified the accused persons from the CCTV footages, deposed that there are two pen drives for the occurrence took place on 18.10.2017 and 19.10.2017. The 1st pen drive shows that A1 Ganesan, A5 Ashok Kumar, A7 Maran and A10 Manikandan are identified by him. The 2nd pen drive shows that he identified A1-Ganesan, A2-Mathiyazhangan, A3- Elumalai, A4-Rajesh, A6-Ashok Kumar and A8-Vasanth.
10. Therefore, even according to him, the petitioner was not present in 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020 the scene of crime and he was not involved in this crime. Insofar as the other witnesses are concerned, they did not even whisper about his role and overt act in the alleged crime. The only relationship is that the petitioner also belonged to the same village and he is no way connected with the other accused persons. Therefore, no charge is made out as against the petitioner and he cannot be directed to undergo the ordeal of Trial.
11. In view of the above, the C.C.No.37 of 2020, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner alone is concerned. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.07.2022 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020 To
1.The Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur
2.The Inspector of Police, Ambur Town Police Station, Vellore District.
Presently Thirupattur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020 Lpp Crl.O.P.No.20437 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.8566 & 8567 of 2020 08.07.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis