Madras High Court
Kumar vs State on 2 December, 2016
Author: P.N. Prakash
Bench: P.N. Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.12.2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.26048 of 2016 Kumar Petitioner vs. 1 State, represented by the Inspector of Police Bagayam Police Station Vellore Taluk and District 2 Murugan Director VDS Matriculation School Edayansanthu Vellore 632 002 Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records of the FIR in Cr. No.458 of 2016 dated 20.09.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For petitioner Mr. C. Prabakaran For R1 Mr. C. Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor - - - - - ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records of the FIR in Cr. No.458 of 2016 dated 20.09.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
2 One D.S. Murugan gave a complaint dated 11.02.2016 to the first respondent police, based on which, a petition enquiry was being conducted in C.S.R. No.64 of 2016. At that juncture, Murugan filed Crl.O.P.No.9347 of 2016 before this Court for a direction to the respondent police to register an FIR based on his complaint. On 06.06.2016, this Court closed the said Criminal Original Petition as under:
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.64 of 2016 before the second respondent and that the petitioner is not cooperating with the enquiry.
4. Hence, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the enquiry and the second respondent police is directed to conduct enquiry and during the course of enquiry, if any bailable offence is made out, a regular case shall be registered, following the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, otherwise, the petition may be closed under intimation to the petitioner. 3 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, it appears that the first respondent police have registered a regular case in Cr. No.458 of 2016 under Sections 447 and 427, IPC, against Kumar (A1), Babu (A2) and one lorry driver, challenging which, Kumar is before this Court.
4 The learned counsel for Kumar submitted that the de facto complainant Murugan is administering VDS Matriculation School in Vellore and that Subhashini, Kumar's wife started a nursery school near VDS Matriculation School, on account of which, there were several disputes between two parties; in order to wreak vengeance, Murugan, the de facto complainant, has given a false complaint, as if Kumar and others had damaged the windshield of the bus belonging to VDS Matriculation School.
5 The learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the certificate that is said to have been given by the District Inspector of Physical Education, Vellore, certifying that Kumar was in the school on 05.02.2016 from 8. a.m. to 6.30 p.m. 6 In the considered opinion of this Court, the defence of alibi cannot be gone into by this Court in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C..
7 Under such circumstances, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore, to monitor the investigation in Bagayam P.S. Cr. No.458 of 2016 and if it is found that the allegations therein are false, it is needless to state that the prosecution against the petitioner shall be dropped. Connected Crl.M.P. is closed.
02.12.2016 cad P.N. PRAKASH, J.
cad To 1 The Inspector of Police Bagayam Police Station Vellore Taluk and District 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vellore 3 The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104 Crl.O.P. No.26048 of 2016 02.12.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in