Madras High Court
Arujunan Sampath vs The State Represented By on 29 November, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21382 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 29/11/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.21382 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.16729 and 16728 of 2023
Arujunan Sampath
Alias Arjun Sampath : Petitioner/A6
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Srirangam Police Station,
Trichy. : R1/Complainant
2.Saravanan : R2/De-facto Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records in SC No.12 of 2021 on the file of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy and quash the same and
pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ayyaswamy
For 1st Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in SC No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21382 of 2023
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he proposed to instal Periyar statue near the police station. Work was underway. Objection was made by some persons headed by one Krishnamacharry. On 06/12/2006, to protect the statue along with his Association members, they were present in that place. At about 04.45 pm in the early morning, on 07/12/2006, the accused came to the spot with hammer, aruval, etc. By raising slogans, they damaged the statue. Two persons were standing in the middle of the road as guards. They completely damaged the statue. Because of the illegal act and atrocity committed by the accused, the pilgrims, who gathered in that place were scared and the traffic also affected. They were apprehended. On enquiry, they disclosed their name as Manickam, Senthilkumar, Rajasekar and Sujith. Other persons escaped from that place. On further enquiry, it was revealed that they belongs to one social organization. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime No.749 of 2006 was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 153(a) IPC and section 3(1) of TNPPD Act and section 25(1) of Indian Arms Act. After completing the investigation process, final report was filed in charge sheet No.183 of 2010 and thereafter, it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21382 of 2023 was taken cognizance in SC No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 153(A), 120(B) IPC and section 3(1) of TNPPD Act r/w 25(1) Arms Act @ 147, 148, 153(A), 120(B) IPC and section 3(1) of TNPPD Act, 1992.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition is filed by the 6th accused stating that he was not at all present in the place of occurrence and participated. Apart from that, he has also stated that he has been implicated, since because he happened to be the President of Hindu Makkal Katchi; None of the allegations in the FIR attract any of the ingredients against him.
4.Another ground that has been mentioned is that even after a lapse of 17 years, there is no conclusion in the investigation process; there is an inordinate delay on the part of the de-facto complainant in lodging the complaint.
5.At that time of hearing the petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial already commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined and also cross examined. On that account also, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21382 of 2023 the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this petition is not maintainable.
6.Even though it is stated that most of the witnesses examined, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that absolutely, there is no material collected during the course of investigation to implicate this petitioner in the occurrence; Apart from that, as stated above, none of the ingredients are not attracted. But since already trial commenced and cross examination was also done by the petitioner, without any reason worth considering, this petition is filed.
7.I find absolutely no reason to entertain this petition. The trial must be taken to its logical conclusion.
8.In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index:Yes/No 29/11/2023
Internet:Yes/No
indu/er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21382 of 2023 To,
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21382 of 2023 G.ILANGOVAN, J indu/er Crl.OP(MD)No.21382 of 2023 29/11/2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6