High Court quashed proceedings against petitioner complained that co-accused in a split trial were acquitted. Court held petitioner stood in same footing and benefit of acquittal extended.
Proceedings in P.R.C.No.89 of 2011 committed to XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.1658 of 2019
and CRL.M.P.Nos.1046 & 1047 of 2019
P.Manikandan @ C.D.Mani ... Petitioner/Accused 2
Vs.
1.State by, Inspector of Police, R-1, Mambalam Police Station, Chennai.
Crime No:253/2009 ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.E.Vinoth Kumar ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.89 of 2011 pending trial on the file of learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, and Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Johnson For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.89 of 2011, on the file of learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as second accused. There are totally 12 accused were charged in Crime No.253 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC and it is pending for committal in P.R.C.No.197 of 2010 before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
3.Since the case is triable by the Sessions Court, which was posted for committal and some of the accused including the petitioner did not appear before the said Court, the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.197 of 2010 was committed to trial Court namely, the Prinicpal Sessions Judge, Chennai. Later it was assigned to Vth Fast Track Court, Additional Sessions Judge in S.C.No.336 of 2011. The trial has been conducted as against only eight accused persons. During the trial PW1 to PW7 were examined, Exs.P1 to P12 marked MO1 to M10 material objects were produced. After full fledged trial, the trial Court found all the accused persons were not guilty and acquitted by its judgment dated 29.09.2011. Now as against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.89 of 2011 is pending for committal before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
4.He further submitted that when co-accused were acquitted by the trial Court, benefit of acquittal can be extended to the petitioner and the petitioner is also standing in same footing of other accused. Hence, he prayed for quashing the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.89 of 2011.
5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the petitioner since the petitioner arrayed as second accused. The petitioner and 11 other accused with an intention to murder one Soori, unlawfully assembled and attacked Soori with deadly weapons namely, knife. As such the case has been registered in Crime No.253 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC.
6.Further, he submitted that during the course of investigation, the accused persons [A-2, A-6, A-7, A-10, A-11 & A-12] surrendered before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, and all of them were remanded into judicial custody. For apprehension of arrest, the accused [A-4] obtained Anticipatory bail. On 26.04.2010, the then Inspector of Police filed absconding charge sheet against accused persons [A-1 & A- 5] and charge sheet against the other accused persons [A-2, A- 3, A-4, A-6 to A-12] before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was taken on file vide P.R.C.No.89 of 2011 dated 01.08.2011. The case against the accused persons [A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10, A-11 and A- 12) was split up in P.R.C.No.197/2010, dated 07.07.2011 and the same was committed to the Sessions Court, Chennai and assigned S.C.No.336/2011 and they were acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove the case. However, the petitioner arrayed as second accused and he is an habitual offender, as against him 20 cases are pending. The list of pending cases are as follows:
S.No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law Stage
1 R-1, Mambalam P.S., Crime U/s.147, 148, Pending Trial
No.253 of 2009 341, 324, 427,
336, 307, 506
(ii) IPC
2 K-10, P.S. Cr.No.524/2009 u/s.302 IPC Pending Trial
3 R-7, P.S., Cr.No.301/2009 u/s.147, 148, Pending Trial
341, 302 IPC
4 J-4, P.S., Cr.No.96/2012 u/s.302 IPC Pending Trial
5 E-3, P.S., Cr.No.1004/2012 u/s.147,148, Pending Trial
341, 307, 302,
506 (ii) IPC
6 Walaja P.S., u/s.399 IPC, Under
Cr.No.471/2013 r/w.25 C(1) a & investigation
(b) Indian Arms
Act
7 Walaja P.S.Cr.No.701/2013 u/s.173 (3) Under
Cr.P.C. @ 302 investigation
IPC
8 J-1, Cr.No.168/2014 u/s.147, 148, Under
341, 302 IPC & investigation
120(b) IPC
9 R-10, P.S., Cr.No.758/2014 u/s.341, 294 Under
(b), 392, 506 investigation
(ii) IPC
10 R-6, P.S., Cr.No.1492/2015 u/s.147, 148, Under
307, 448 IPC investigation
r/w.3 of
Explosive
Substances Act
of 1908
11 J-5, P.S., Cr.No.1684/2015 u/s.147, 148, Under
386, 506 (ii) investigation
IPC
12 J-12, P.S., u/s.394 IPC Under
Cr.No.3056/2015 investigation
13 J-2, P.S., Cr.No.229/2016 u/s.147, 148, Under
307, 506 (ii) investigation
IPC r/w.25 1 (a)
Indian Arms Act
S.No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law Stage
14 R-6, P.S.Cr.No.97/2016 u/s.147, 148, Under
341, 307 IPC investigation
r/w.25 CL (1)
Arms Act r/w.120
(B) IPC
15 E-3, P.S., Cr.No.401/2016 u/s.399 IPC Pending Trial
r/w.25 1 (A)
Indian Arms Act,
1959
16 E-3, P.S., Cr.No.859/2016 u/s.147, 148, Pending Trial
341, 294(b),
384, 506 (ii)
IPC
17 E-3, P.S., Cr.No.861/2016 u/s.341, 294 Pending Trial
(b), 336, 427,
323, 392, 397,
506 (ii) IPC
18 R-4, P.S., Cr.No.462/2016 u/s.147, 148, Under
294 (b), 392, investigation
506 (ii) IPC
19 R-1, P.S., Cr.No.461 of u/s.341, 294(b), Pending Trial
2018 384, 506 (ii)
IPC r/w.120 (b)
IPC & 25 (i)(a)
Arms Act
20 J-12, Kanathur P.S., u/s.148,353 307, Under
Cr.No.347/2018 506 (ii) IPC 25 investigation
(1-B) a r/w.3 of
Arms Act 1959
7.Therefore, the benefits of other accused cannot be extended to the petitioner. He further submitted that there are evidences to prove the charge as against the petitioner. Therefore, the trial may be proceeded as against the petitioner and he prayed for dismissal of quash petition.
8.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and perused the documents available on record.
9.It is seen from the records that the petitioner has been arrayed as second accused. There are totally 12 accused in Crime No.253 of 2009 alleged for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. The first respondent filed a charge sheet and it is pending committal in
P.R.C.No.197 of 2010. But the petitioner and the few accused persons were not appeared before the concerned Court. Other accused persons were split up and committed to Sessions Court for trial. The trial Court conducted the trial and discussed as follows:
muR jug;gp ;y ; vjphpfs; kPJ Rkj;jg ;gl ;Ls ;s Fw;wr ;rhl ;Lf ;fis epU:gpg ;gjw ;F ,.m.rh.1 Kjy; m.rh.8 rhl;rpfs; tprhhpf;fg ;gl ;L m.rh.M.1 Kjy; m.rh.M.12 tiuahd rhd;whtzq;fs ; kw;Wk ; rh.bgh.1 Kjy; 10tiuahd rhd;Wg ;bghUl;fs ; FwpaPL bra;ag ;gl ;lJ.
tprhhpf;fg ;gl ;l rhl;rpfspy; m.rh.1 g[fhh;jhuh; kw;Wk ; rk;gtj;ij fz;Zw ;w rhl;rpfs; mth;fsJ rhl;rpaj;jpy; Kjy;epiy tprhuizapnyna jdf;F tHf;F rk;gtk ; Fwpj;J vJt[k ; bjhpahJ vd;Wk ; g[fhhpy; cs;s ifbaGj;J kl;Lk ; jd;DilaJ vd;Wk ; jhd; fhty; epiyak; brd;W ifbaGj;J nghl;ljhft[k ; tHf;fpd; gpw tptuq;fs ; bjhpahJ vd;Wk ; brhy;yp KGJtJkhfnt gpwH; rhl;rpahf khwpa[s ;shh;. kw;bwhU fz;Zw ;w rhl;rpfshf tprhhpf;fg ;gl ;l m.rh.2, 3k; KGJtJkhf gpwH; rhl;rpahf khwp muR jug;g [ tHf;if tYtpHf;Fk ; tifapy; rhl;rpak; mspj;Js ;shh;fs ;.
,e;j tHf;fpy ; ghjpf;fg ;gl ;l eguhd rhl;rp Nhp rk;gtj;jpw ;Fg ;gpd; 3 khjq;fs ; fHpj;J ,we;Jtpl ;ljhf muR jug;gpy; rkh;gpf;fg ;gl ;lJ. mtuJ kidtpahd m.rh.6 jpUkjp.uhn$];thp mth;fs ; muRjug;gpy; rk;gtj;ij fz;Zw ;w rhl;rpahf fhz;gpf;fg ;gl ;l nghjpYk;mth; jdJ Kjy;epiy tprhuizapnyna rk;gtj;jd ;W ,ut [ jd; tPl;ow ;F gf;fj ;jpy ; ,Ue;jth;fs ; jd; fztUf;F mogl;ljhf brhd;djd;nghpy; brd;W ghh;j ;jnghJ jd; tPl;Lf ;fhuh; clk;g [ KGtJk; uj;jkhf fple;jhh; vd;Wk ; jhd; mtiu muR kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;Jr ;brd;W nrh;j ;jjhft[k ; jd; fzth; me;j kUj;Jtkidapy; bjhlh;e ;J 2 khjq;fs ; bjhlh; rpfpr;ir nkw;bfhz;ljhft[k ; Twpa[s ;shh;.
m.rh.4-lhf;lh;.jzpifauR mtuJ rhl;rpaj;jpy,; 11.4.09 md;W jhd; gzpapypUe;jnghJ ,ut[ Rkhh; 11 kzpastpy; ,e;j tHf;fpy ; ghjpf;fg ;gl ;l Nhp, rpfpr;irf;F miHj;J tug;gl ;ljhft[k ;, mtiu miHj;J te;j egh; jpU.btq;fnlrd; vd;gth; vd;Wk ; mtiu tprhhpj;jnghJ milahsk; bjhpahj 6 egh;fs ; mhpths; bfhz;L jhf;fpajhf rhl ;rpak; mspj;Js ;shh;. ,tuJ rhl;rpaj;ija[k ;, m.rh.6d; rhl;rpaj;ija[k ; itj;J ghh; ;f ;Fk ;nghJ rk;gtk ; ele;jJ kw;Wk ; mjpy; rhl;rp Nhp vd;gtUf;F bfhLq;fhak; Vw;gl ;lJ vd;w tptuq;fs ; bjhpa tUfpwJ.
m.rh.6 mtuJ Kjy;epiy tprhuizapy; rk;gtnjjp Fwpj;J khwp TwpapUe;jhYk; tHf;fpd; Mtzq;fs ; kw;Wk ; rhl;rpaq ;fspd;go rk;gtk; ele;jJ 11.4.09 vd;Wk ; mjpy; rhl;rp Nhp jhf;fg ;gl ;L bfhLq;fhak; mile;j tptuk; bjhpa tUfpwJ. ,e;j tHf;fpd; vjphpfs;, ,we;j vjphp kw;Wk ; jiykiwt[ vjphpfs;jhd; rk;gtj;jpy ; <Lgl;L rhl;rp Nhpf;F fhaj;ij cz;lhf;fpdhh ;fsh vd;gJ Fwpj;J Muha[k ;nghJ muRjug;gpy; cjtp Ma;thsh; m.rh.7-nfhtpe;juh$;, m.rh.8-jpU.rutzd; Ma;thsh; mth;fSila rhl;rpaq;fis jtpu jdpegh; rhl;rpfs; ahUk; Kd;dpUj;jg ;gltpy;iy. m.rh.7, 8 fhty; mjpfhhpfspd; rhl;rpaj;jpy ;, tprhuizapd;go m.rh.1 bfhLj;jjhf brhd;d g[fhhpd;
mog;gilapy; jiykiwt[ vjphp RF vd;w RFkhwd; ,w;eJtpl;l vjphp uh$h vd;w gy;Y uh$h kw;Wk ; ,t;tHf;fpd ; vjphpfshd kzpfd;ld; md;g [ vd;w Jg;ghf;fp md;g [ kPJk; kw;Wk ; rpyegh;fs ; kPJk; tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag ;gl ;ljhf bjhpa tUfpwJ. kw;w vjphpfs; rhl;rpfspd; kWtprhuizapy; bgah; Fwpj;Jf ; bfhz;ljhf Mtzq;fs ; K:yk ; bjhpa tUfpwJ. Mdhy; ,e;j tHf;fpy; vjphpfis tprhhpj;jnghJ mth;fs ; xg;g [jy ; thf;FK :yj ;jpy ; brhy;ypago brhj;Jf ;fis M$h;gLj;jpdh; vd;gjw;F muRjug;gpy ;jdp egh; rhl;rpfs; K:yk ; epU:gpf;fg ;gltpy;iy. nkYk;, ,e;j tHf;fpd; ifg;gw ;wg ;gl ;ljhf brhd;d uj;jf ;fiw goe;j bghUl;fis ,urhaz Ma;tpw ;F mDg;gg ;gl ;L mwpf;if Kf;fpakhf uj;jj ;jpd; tif Fwpj;J fz;lwpag;gLtjw;F muRjug;gpy ; tprhuiz fhyj;jpy; ve;jtpj Kaw;rpa[k ; nkw;bfhs;stpy;iy.
,e;j tHf;fpy ; Kf;fpa Mtzkhd g[fhhpy; cs;s tptuq;fis bjhpahJ vd;W g [fhh ;jhunu rhl;rpak; mspj;Js ;sij itj;Jk ; fz;Zw ;w rhl;rpfs; ahUk; vjphpfisa [k ;, rk;gtj;ija[k ; Fwpj;J rhl;rp mspf;fhjjhy; fhakile;jthpd; kidtp m.rh.6 gpwH; rhl;rpahf khwpa[s ;sij itj;J ghprPyid bra;jjpy; ,e;j ePjpkd;wk ; muR jug;gpy ; vjphpfs; kPJ Rkj;jg ;gl ;Ls ;s Fw;wr ;rhl ;Lf ;fs ; re;njfj;jpw;fplkpd;wp epU:gpf;fg ;gltpy;iy vd;W jPh;khdk; bra;J re;njfj;jpd; gyid vjphpfSf;F mspj;J vjphpfis tpLjiy bra;ayhk ; vd;W ,e;jg ;gpur;ridf;F tpis mspf;fpwJ.
nkYk; ,e;j tHf;fpy; Kf;fpa Mtzq;fs ; cl;gl midj;J Mtzq;fSk ; jhkjkhf ePjpkd;wj ;jpy; bgwg;gl ;Ls ;sJ. mJgw;wpa[k ; muRjug;gpy; ve;jtpjkhd tpsf;fKk ; mspf;fg ;gltpy;iy.
,Wjpahf , 1 Kjy; 8 vjphpfs; kPJ ,jr gphpt[fs ; 341, 506(2), 427, 336d; fPH; kw;Wk ; 1, 2 vjphpfs; kPJ ,jr gphpt[ 307d; fPGk; kw;Wk ; 3 Kjy; 8 vjphpfs; kPJ ,jr 307c/,34d; fPHhd Fw;wq ;fshdJ muR jug;gpy ; rhptu epU:gpf;fg ;glhjjhy; vjphpfs; Fw;wthsp my;y vdj; jPh;khdk ; bra;J vjphpfis 235(1); d; fPH; tpLjiy bra;J jPh;g ;gspf;fg ;gLfpwJ.
10.It is seen from the above, the victim namely, PW1 deposed that he did not know about the occurrence. Other prosecution witnesses namely, PW2 and PW3 were also turned hostile. Therefore, the trial Court recorded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubts and the benefit of doubt goes to in favour of accused and hence acquitted. Insofar, the petitioner/second accused is concerned, he is also standing in the same footing of other accused for the offence charged under Sections 147, 148, 341, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the acquittal passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.336 of 2011 dated 29.09.2011.
11.It is also seen from the records that there are totally 20 list of witnesses, in which the prosecution examined only
seven witnesses. They also did not support the case of the prosecution and infact the defacto complainant/injured also turned hostile. As such the benefit of acquittal of other accused also may be extended to the petitioner.
12.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that if the trial proceeded as against the petitioner, no purpose would be served to the case of the prosecution. It is also seen from the statements recorded under Section 161 sub clause (3) of Cr.P.C, there is no specific overtact as against the petitioner and all the allegations are bald and vague.
13.Considering the above facts and circumstances, this
Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in
P.R.C.No.89 of 2011, on the file of learned XVII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saidapet is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pam
To
1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet.
2.The Inspector of Police,
R-1, Mambalam Police Station,
Chennai.
Crime No:253/2009
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.C.D.Johnson, Advocate, S.R.No. 13893
CRL.O.P.No.1658 of 2019
and CRL.M.P.Nos.1046 & 1047 of 2019
CNR(CO) GN(07/03/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of acquittal of co-accused in a split trial extends to an accused remaining in a separate pending charge sheet.
Whether quashing of proceedings is justified when there is no specific overt act against the petitioner and allegations are bald and vague.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Section 235(1) Cr.P.CApplied¶12
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Manikandan
State by Inspector of Police, R-1, Mambalam Police Station, Chennai
E.Vinoth Kumar
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
