Madras High Court
Tamilselvan vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 June, 2014
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 23.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2014 and M.P.No.1/2014 Tamilselvan .. Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police Cuddalore N.T. Police Station Cuddalore (Cr.No.495/2013) .. Respondent Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 01.04.2014 made in C.M.P.No.201/2014 in S.C.No.9 of 2014, on the file of the Sessions Judge (FAC), Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in dismissing the petition filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, Govt.Advocate(Crl.side) O R D E R
This revision is directed against the order dated 01.04.2014 in CMP No.201 of 2014 in S.C.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.
2. The petitioner has been charged for offence under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC and the petitioner is the sole accused in the case. The petitioner sought for discharge from the criminal case by filing a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The court below by the impugned order dismissed the same. Challenging the said order, this present revision has been filed.
3. Mr.N.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised four contentions stating that (i) all the witnesses are strangers; (ii) no identification parade was conducted; (iii) on the date of occurrence whether the deceased was attending College was not established by producing the attendance register; and (iv) none has spoken about the alleged offence.
4. On a perusal of the impugned order it is evidently clear that, the investigation has been done and witnesses have been examined; Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements have been recorded from four witnesses, namely, L.W.2/ Kodeeswari, LW.3/Gomathi, L.W.4/Priya and L.W.5/Suganya, who have stated that the deceased was studying in the first shift of their College and have also named the petitioner/accused. That apart, the Security Guard/Anthonysamy working in the College was examined as L.W.7 and his statement has been recorded.
In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that all the witnesses are strangers and there is no document to establish to make the petitioner to attract offence under Section 302 IPC. Furthermore, the complainant is the brother of the deceased and in the complaint also the petitioner has been named as accused. Hence for all the above reasons, the charge framed against the petitioner cannot be quashed and the order passed by the Court below is perfectly valid. The Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.06.2014 gms To
1.The Inspector of Police Cuddalore N.T. Police Station Cuddalore.
2.The Sessions Judge (FAC), Mahila Court, Cuddalore
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gms Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2014 23.06.2014