Madras High Court
Anandaraj vs State By on 4 September, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019
and CRL.MP.No.5761 of 2019
Anandaraj
W/o.Kailyaperumal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State by
The Inspector of Police,
Marakkanam Police Station,
Villupuram District
(Cr.No.273 of 2013)
2. Natarajan
S/o.Kanakaraj ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying
to call for the records in S.C.No.77 of 2018 on the file of learned II Additional
District Judge, Tindivanam, Villupuram District and quash the charge sheet as
against the petitioner (A6).
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Priyakumar
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in S.C.No.77 of 2018 on the file of learned II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, Villupuram District, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 435 r/w 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Public Property Damage Act as against the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are totally 34 accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as sixth accused in this case. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.237 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 323, 435 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Public Property Damage and Loss Act, alleging that when the driver of the State Express Transport Corporation was driving the bus, it was incepted by 200 persons and they were attacked the bus with stones. Therefore, they caused damage to the government buses and the second respondent also sustained injury. He further submitted that the defacto complainant lodged complaint as against more than 200 persons. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report only as against 34 persons. There is absolutely no specific overt-act http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019 attributed as against the petitioner. All the witnesses have spoken with common allegations and there is absolutely no specific allegations as against each of the accused. In particularly, there is absolutely no specific allegation as against the petitioner and the allegations are bald and vague.
2.1. He further submitted that on the alleged date of occurrence i.e., on 25.04.2013, the petitioner was working in Vridhacalam-Ariyalur railway double link project at Vridhachalam under L&T Construction. Therefore, the petitioner never present at the place of occurrence on that day. In fact, the petitioner's residence is situated with the other accused persons' residence as such, he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the petitioner stayed away from the occurrence place and working in Vridhacalam-Ariyalur railway double link project. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire proceeding as against the petitioner.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that all the accused persons are belonging to a political party and while agitation, they attacked the government buses by throwing stones and also attacked the drivers of the respective buses and caused http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019 damages to the tune of Rs.31,83,157/-. All the accused persons have damaged totally 11 buses and also attacked the respective drivers of the buses. He further submitted that there is specific overtact as against each of the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 435 r/w 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Public Property Damage Act, and also as against the petitioner. On the ground of alibi is concerned, the document has to be tested before the trial Court during trial. Therefore he sought for dismissal of this quash petition.
4. Heard Mr.R.Priyakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
5. On perusal of records, it is seen that there are 34 accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as A6. The charge as against the accused persons are that, while agitation they attacked the government buses and cause damage to the tune of Rs.31,83,157/- and also attacked the drivers of the respective buses due to which they sustained injuries. It is seen from the statement of witnesses all of them have spoken as follows :-
@ehd; nkny fz;l tpyhrj;jpy;
trpf;fpnwd;/ ehfg;gl;odk; muR http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019 nghf;Ftuj;J fHfj;jpy; Xl;Leuhd gzpg[hpfpnwd;/ 25/04/2013e; njjp 11/30 kzpf;F TN01AN0279 vd;w ngUe;ij brd;idapy; vLj;J ntsh';fz;zp ECR khh;f;fk; brd;w nghJ nuhL kuf;fhzk; bgl;nuhy; g';f; mUfpy; brd;w nghJ Rkhh; 14/30 kzpf;F gh/k/f khehl;ow;F brd;w gh/k/f/ bjhz;lh;fs; Rkhh; 200 ngh; ehd; Xl;o brd;w g!;i! tHp kwpj;J epWj;jpdhh;fs;/ ngUe;J epd;wt[ld; ngUe;J kPJ fy;tPr;rp jhf;fpdhh;fs;/ ,jpy; vdJ ngUe;J midj;J fz;zhofs;. Head light midj;Jk; cile;J tpl;ld/ vdf;F fy;tPr;rhy; be";rpy;gl;L cs; typ Vw;gl;L jdpahh; kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;ir bgw;nwd;/ vd; ngUe;jpy; gazk; bra;j Mz; gazp xUtUf;F jiyapy; fhak; Vw;gl;L uj;jk; te;jjhy; 108 Mk;g[yd;!; Kyk; kUj;Jtkidf;D mDg;gp itj;njd;/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf eltof;if vLf;f g[fhh; bfhLj;njd/ ,d;W jh';fs; vd;id tprhhpf;f ele;j tpguk; Twpndd;/@
Though the first respondent charged the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 435 r/w 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Public http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019 Property Damage Act, there is no specific allegation as against the accused persons. In fact, the second respondent/defacto complainant alleged that there are 200 persons at the place of occurrence, whereas the first respondent filed final report only as against 34 persons. Further more, there is no mentioned about that in the 200 persons, who are present at the time of occurrence.
6. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he arrayed as sixth accused in the final report and as against him, there is no specific allegation and all the allegations are bald and vague. In fact on perusal of the final report, initially, the said final report was returned with an endorsement that the accused No.4 and 20 are one and same person and the first respondent did not even mentioned the father name of the some accused persons and also returned for the reason that when the FIR registered as against 200 persons, the final report has been filed as against only 34 persons, for which there is no explanation. After returning of the final report, the first respondent filed revised final report as against 33 persons by deleting one person.
7. That apart, the petitioner is working under the L&T Constructions and at the time of occurrence on 25.04.2013, he worked at Vridhachalam- http://www.judis.nic.in Page 6 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019 Ariyalur railway double link project. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner is also not believable on the date of occurrence at the place of occurrence on 25.04.2013. Therefore, there is no specific allegations as against the petitioner and to prove the presence of the petitioner and no material has been produced by the first respondent herein. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated as against the petitioner as such the petitioner need not to go for ordeal of trial.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.77 of 2018 on the file of learned II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, Villupuram District, is hereby quash as against the petitioner alone. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial as against the other accused persons within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
04.09.2020 (1/3) Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order rts http://www.judis.nic.in Page 7 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts To
1. II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, Villupuram District,
2. The Inspector of Police, Marakkanam Police Station, Villupuram District
3. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai.
CRL.O.P.No.11324 of 2019 and CRL.MP.No.5761 of 2019
04.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 8 of 8