Dismissed

Ravichandran v. State Rep. by

Madras HC8 Jul 2015CRL OP/14890/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras rejected a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that the petitioner's absconding and the relevance of his statements under the Evidence Act provided sufficient motive and substance, failing to meet the threshold to stifle the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings in PRC No.21 of 2014 is dismissed.

Ravichandran Vs State Rep. by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on : 01.07.2015

¶3

Delivered on : 08.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

CRL.O.P.No.14890 of 2015

¶7

and M.P.Nos.1,2 of 2015

¶8

Ravichandran ... Petitioner/A5 Versus 1.State Rep. by

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Kavandapadi Police Station, Erode District.(Cr.No.154/2014) ... 1^st Respondent/complainant.

¶10

2.A.Subash Swaminathan ... 2^nd Respondents/Defacto Complainant.

¶11

Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in PRC.No.21 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam and quash the entire proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajamohan

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor [for R1] : Ms.J.Madhuri [for R2]

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.21 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent; the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶17

On a complaint lodged by Subash, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.154 of 2014 under Section 147, 371,

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

294b, 324, 506[ii] IPC read with Section 3 of TNPPDL Act 1992, against 5 persons and after completing the investigation, filed a Final Report in PRC.No.21 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate II, Gobichettipalayam, challenging which Ravichandran [A5] has filed this petition for quashing the prosecution.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that Ravichandran [A5] is running Savarimuthu Aruldoss Memorial Trust and had collected deposits from various persons in and around the Village, promising to give high interest. Subash [defacto complainant] had invested some money in the establishment of Ravichandran [A5] and had lost. The defacto complainant has also filed a Public Interest Litigation before this Court against Ravichandran [A5], which is said to be pending.

¶21

The defacto complainant and some others decided to make public announcement exhorting people not to invest in Ravichandran's establishment and lose their hard earned money. On 06.07.2014, they were going around by their vehicle, TN 33 AF 1012, for sticking posters around the village at 12.30 in the night, about 4 persons rallied them and attacked the defacto complainant and his companion. During the attack, they warned the defacto complainant not to put up such posters against Ravichandran and declared that they were set up by Ravichandran [A5]. Hence, on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, police registered the case as aforesaid and now filed Final Report before the jurisdictional court.

¶22

Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that except the statement of the co-accused, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the offences. He submitted that the statement given by the assailant is a hearsay and is inadmissible.

¶23

This Court is unable to concur with this submission because, anything said by the accused during the course of the transaction would be relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and the same can be spoken to by the witnesses who heard them say. Whether that by itself would be sufficient for convicting the accused is a question that has to be left to the Trial Court to decide in the backdrop of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that this petitioner absconded immediately after the incident and his whereabouts were not known. He also submitted that there are several other criminal cases pending against this petitioner.

¶25

It is seen that when the defacto complainant and his companion were pasting posters against this petitioner, the said incident has taken place. Thereafter, the petitioner absconded which is a powerful circumstance under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Of

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

course, abscondance by itself cannot lead to the inference that the absconder had the necessary mens rea. But, this Court cannot ignore the factum of abscondance and quash the prosecution at the threshold. The materials on record shows that there is sufficient motive and just becasue the petitioner was not in the scene of occurrence, this Court cannot quash the prosecution.

¶28

It may be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinodh Raghuvanshi Vs Ajay Arora and Others, it is held as follows:

¶29

"When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither the Court can embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor the Court should judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. Moreso, the charge-sheet filed or charges framed at the initial stage can be altered/amended or a charge can be added at the subsequent stage, after the evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of Section 216, Cr.P.C. Court should not "kill a still born child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance.“

¶30

Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that even after the Final Report was filed, the petitioner refused to even receive summons issued by the Trial Court and therefore, the summons had to be stuck on the door of the respondents by the police.

¶31

In the result, this petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

gya

¶33

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-II) True Copy

¶34

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam.

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

The Inspector of Police, Kavandapadi Police Station, Erode District.

¶39

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶40

- 2 ccs to M/s.J.Madhuri, Advocate SR 32570

¶41

- 1 cc to Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, Advocate SR 12783

¶42

sv(co) prk22/7 CRL.O.P.No.14890 of 2015

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ravichandran v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravichandran v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvi. Mariammal Vs State Rep. by

M/S.Reliance Jioinfocomm Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Gurupatham Vs the Inspector of Police

Mathankumar Vs State Rep. by

Gopal Vs the State Rep. by