Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The above petition seems to have been filed with a prayer to add the sections of law i.e. sections 120-B r/w 468,468,471,420 r/w 511 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the following three persons:

1. N.Ayyamuthu, Head Constable 1469

2. V.Chandru @ Ranjithchander , son of Mr.Venkatapathy &

3. S.Rengaraj, son of Subbiah Gowder.

7. Originally, as per the orders of this Court dated 22.04.2008 and made in W.P.No.7389 of 2005, the First Information Report was registered in FCMA1/2008-A-0029 on 25.06.2008 at about 3.30 p.m. under Sections 279, 338 IPC by one Mr. R.Ravi (PW16), Inspector of Police attached to CBI/ACB Chennai against the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN-37-AJ-3226 (Pajero Car). In the FIR there was no mention about the name of the driver, who drove the vehicle at the material time. In connection thereof, the Inspector Police attached to CBI/ACB, has stated in his petition filed before this Court, that the records such as FIR, FIR index, carbon copy of case diary file, letter of inspector addressed to the RTO (South) Coimbatore for inspection of vehicle , docket sheet, counterfoil and charge sheet etc., clearly show that the accident was caused by Mr. Chandru, son of Venkatapathy and Mr. N.Ayyamuthu, Head Constable had forged and fabricated another charge sheet and Mr. S.Rengaraj was forced to admit the guilt. He would further state that since the investigation had revealed that Mr. Ayyamuthu, the Head Constable, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with Chandru and S.Rengaraj, had abused his official position and had forged and filed a fake charge sheet against S.Rengaraj and in pursuance of the same Mr. S.Rengaraj had also falsely admitted the guilt before the trial Court. According to the Inspector of Police, Mr. R.Ravi, (PW 16), the above facts prima facie disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, r/w 468,468,471 & 420 IPC r/w 511 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A3 and substantive offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC against Chandru.

(i) there is no material available to indicate his involvement in any manner in the commission of any acts, constituting the offences as referred to above;

(ii) the conspiracy, if any, was entered into only by his father Mr.Venkatapathy (since deceased), who was referred to as the owner of the car in the statement of the approver Rengaraj (PW2) and he (V.Chandru @ Ranjthchander) being minor at the relevant point of time had nothing to do with the act of conspiracy; and

(iii) as far as the other offences under Sections 279 & 338 IPC are concerned, the charge under Section 279 IPC is time barred, as contemplated under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the charge under Section 338 IPC can be compounded with the permission of the Court.

74. It is pertinent to note here that the complainant Mr. Jayaraj (PW8) had filed a petition in M.P.No.2 of 2013 in Crl. O.P.No.31828 of 2012 before this Court, seeking permission to compound the offences under Section 338 IPC, as the payment of compensation was made by the petitioner V.Chandru @ Ranjthchander, as per the award, dated 14.12.2007.

75. With very great respect to the learned single Judge of this Court, this Court would like to point out, that when considering the fact that the case in Crime No.75 of 2006 (STC No.2478 of 2006) was ended in conviction, as PW2 Rengaraj had admitted the guilt, she had proceeded to allow the petition, with a finding that the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner viz., V.Chandru @ Ranjthchander for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 468,471,420 r/w 511 IPC for want of prima facie case and the offence under Section 279 IPC, on the ground of limitation and the offence under Section 338 IPC for the reason of the settlement arrived at between the parties cannot and need not continue to go on and in the event of the same being continued it is likely to cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and hence liable to be set aside. Ultimately the proceedings in JC No.35 of 2009 pending against V.Chandru @ Ranjthchander on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Coimbatore was quashed and the petition in M.P.No.2 of 2013 in Crl. O.P.No.31828 of 2012 filed by the complainant seeking permission of this Court to get the case compounded was allowed.

164. It is also the case of the defence that on 23.02.2006, in the morning hours one Head Constable 2105 Subramaniam had given the charge sheet and other papers relating to the case in Crime No.756 of 2006 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC which were levelled against PW2 Rengaraj and had informed the appellant Ayyamuthu that PW2 Rengaraj also was informed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate II on that day i.e. on 23.08.2006.

165. Accordingly the appellant Ayyamuthu had produced the charge sheet and other papers before the Judicial Magistrate I, Coimbatore on 12.03.2006 in the morning and it was also taken on file as STC No.2478 of 2006. Thereafter PW2 Rengaraj had appeared before the Judicial Magistrate I Coimbatore, received the copies of the charge sheet and other papers and on questioning he had admitted the guilt and hence he was convicted and sentenced to pay Rs.750/- under Section 279 IPC and another sum of Rs.750/- under Section 338 IPC. The information in this connection was passed on to the Police Station by the appellant. Here, the Head Constable subramaniam was not examined as a witness by the prosecuting agency. The written statement submitted by the appellant before the learned Special Judge under Section 314 of Criminal Procedure was not disproved by the prosecution. No contrary evidence was also adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court finds that the appellant has proved the case of defence and disproved the case of the prosecution, as the principle of preponderance of probability is available in the statements of the appellant. These circumstances would go to show that the charge either under Section 466 or 468 or Section 471 IPC have not been brought home by the prosecution. Subsequently, the charge under Section 420 r/w 511 IPC also automatically goes out.