Dismissed

Ravichandran v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Mar 2016CRL OP/25113/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging the dismissal of a Criminal Original Petition filed for further investigation, the Single Judge rejected arguments for implicating a witness as an accused, dismissed the petition as an attempt to drag proceedings, and directed the Sessions Court to dispose of pending chargesheets within three months.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; direction given to dispose of pending chargesheets within three months.

Ravichandran Vs Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.03.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.25113 of 2009 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶7

Ravichandran .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State by Inspector of Police, Thavalakuppam Police Station, Pondicherry. (Crime No.18/2004) .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent to conduct further investigation in Crime No.18 of 2004 dated 20.02.2004 on the file of the respondent within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the manner known to law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sukumaran

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugane Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking for direction, directing the respondent for further investigation in Crime No.18 of 2004 dated 20.02.2004.

¶15

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy) for the respondent.

¶16

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶17

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

¶18

one Govind @ Perumal, son of Periasami, is as an accused for the commission of offence alleged to have taken place on 20.02.2004. But the said Govind @ Perumal was shown as L.W.10 in the charge sheet. He further submitted that a specific overtact has been given against the said Govind @ Perumal and in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner has mentioned about the same. But the respondent police has not implicated him as an accused in the case. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the list of witnesses, in serial No.9, one Oothukattan was shown as witness, who is none other than the surety for one of the accused. He would also submit that neither the petitioner nor his wife and brother were examined by the Investigating Agency. Therefore, the investigation has not been done in a proper direction and hence, he prayed for further investigation.

¶19

4.Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy) submitted that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner a case in Crime No.18 of 2004 has been registered on 20.02.2004 and after due investigation, charge sheet has been levied which was taken as S.C.Nos.13/2009 and 14/2009 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. He further submitted that when the matter was posted for examination of witnesses, the de-facto complainant/the petitioner herein has not appeared before the Court and it is pending from the year 2009 onwards. He would also submit that in the FIR, it was stated that at the instigation of the said Govind @ Perumal the accused persons have assaulted the petitioner but in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner has stated that the said Govind @ Perumal has assaulted him, which shows that due to previous enmity, the petitioner wants to rope the said Govind @ Perumal as one of the accused in the present case.

¶20

5.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the typed set of papers.

¶21

6.On 20.02.2004 at 8.15 p.m, when the petitioner along with his wife and brother has proceeding to Pooranankuppam Main Road, near Government Primary School, Pudhukuppam, at that time, they were assaulted by the accused persons. The petitioner gave a complaint at 11.30 p.m. and a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307 r/w. 149 of IPC. On perusal of the complaint,

¶22

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

¶23

it is seen that the petitioner has stated as follows:

¶24

“$hkPdpy; te;jjpypUe;J vd;id vg;goa[k ; jPh;j ;JtpLtJ vd;W Kot[ bra;J v';fs ; Ciur; nrh;e ;j nfhtpe;J vd;gth; Mnyhridapd;go bray;gl ;L tUfpwhh;fs ; ”

¶25

Further, in the last portion of the complaint, he has stated as follows:

¶26

“vd;id nkw;go egh;fs ; bfhiy bra;a ntz;Lk ; vd;w nehf;fj ;njhL jhf;Ftjw ;Fk ; Kyfhuzk; nfhtpe;Jjhd ; vd;gij j';fsplk; bjhptpj;Jf ;bfhs;fpnwd;/”

¶27

But whereas in the affidavit filed in support of this petition seeking for further investigation, in paragraph No.3, he has stated as follows:

¶28

“....at that juncture, Govind @ Perumal, son of P.Periasami, attacked the petitioner with a knife by saying eP , d;dpnahL brj;Jg;nghlh by aiming the Head of the petitioner and the petitioner realizing the danger to his life, avoided the head from the attack but in the said attack, the petitioner sustained injuries on the back of head and neck”

¶29

which shows the malafide intention of the petitioner to rope the said Govind @ Perumal as one of the accused in the case. So, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Govind @ Perumal had attacked the petitioner does not merit acceptance.

¶30

7.In so far as including the said Govind @ Perumal as L.W.10 is concerned, since in the complaint the petitioner has stated that at the instigation of the said Govind @ Perumal alone the accused persons have assaulted him with the intention of murdering him, the Investigating Agency has enquired the said Govind @ Perumal and he is one of the attestor of the Seizure Mahazar. So, merely because he is the attestor of the Seizure Mahazar, it will not be the reason for ordering further investigation. Further, one Oothukattan who stood as surety for one of the accused was shown as L.W.9 since he is the attestor of confession statement of Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 and no document has been filed by the petitioner to show that L.W.9 stood as surety to one

¶31

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

¶32

of the accused.

¶33

8.It is painful to accept that during investigation the petitioner, his wife and his brother were not examined. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this petition has been filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings and to create mental agony to the said Govind @ Perumal. Hence, I do not find any reason for ordering for further investigation and therefore, the Criminal Original Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

9.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, a direction is given to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pondicherry to dispose of the cases in S.C.Nos.13 of 2009 and 14 of 2009 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cse

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

1.The Assistant Sessions Judge,
Pondicherry.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thavalakuppam Police Station,
Pondicherry.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.K. Sukumaran, Advocate, S.R.No.15082
KJI(CO)
EU(30/03/2016)
Crl.O.P.No.25113 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶39

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

Ravichandran v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravichandran v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.B.R.Menon Vs The Secretary to Government

Jayanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Javid Nazmudeen Vs M. Rahima Barvin

Panimalar Vs State by the Inspector of

N.Rajani Vs Gopkumaran Nair

Ananthi Vs the State Rep. by