Allowed

S.Selvaraj v. State Rep by

Madras HC27 Nov 2023CRL OP/3158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a CrOP seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that since main accused were acquitted and prosecution failed to prove its case, further trial against the petitioner was an empty formality and liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in S.C.No.268 of 2003 pending before the Additional Session Judge/FTC No.4 of Coimbatore are quashed.

S.Selvaraj Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1415 and 1417 of 2022

S.Selvaraj

...Petitioner

-Vs-

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Tirupur North Police Station, Tirupur District, (Crime No.233 of 99)

¶11

S.Sundararaj ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the entire records connected with the case in S.C.No.268 of 2003 pending on the file of the Learned Additional Session Judge/FTC No.4 of Coimbatore in Tirupur, quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thilageswaran For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.268 of 2003 pending on the file of the Learned Additional Session Judge/FTC No.4 of Coimbatore in Tirupur.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the accused are brothers and on previous enmity with the defacto complainant, one Rukmani with the suspicion of her having illicit relationship with their father, they attacked her and her husband and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.233 of 99 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.104 of 2000, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A2. However, he failed to appear before the Trial Court

¶22

and as such, the case has been split up as against the petitioner in S.C.No.268 Page 2 of 7

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2022

¶25

of 2004. The Trial Court had conducted a full fledged trial and the co-accused were acquitted by the Trial Court, on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove it case beyond any doubt. Further, the witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution and as such, further trial as against the petitioner would be an empty formality.

¶26

A perusal of the Judgment passed in S.C.No.104 of 2000 dated 28.09.2004 revealed that there is a categorical observation that the implication of the petitioner herein is highly suspicious. That apart, the petitioner had no knowledge about the FIR as well as the charge sheet, since he is staying in abroad for his employment purpose.

¶27

The relevant portion of the Judgment passed in S.C.No.104 of 2000

¶28

dated 28.09.2004 is extracted hereunder:-

¶29

“ Vw;fdnt 1 Kjy; 3 tiuapyhd rhl;rpfs; gpwH;rhl;rpfshfp ,Ug;gij fUj;jpy; bfhz;L ghh;f;Fk; nghJ m/rh/4. 5 Mfpnahh;fspd; rhl;rpak; muR jug;g[f;F tYthf mikatpy;iy/ m/rh/M/5. 6 Kiwna m/rh/1. 2d; fhar; rhd;wpjH;fis guprPyid bra;J ghh;f;Fk; nghJ nkw;go fhar;rhd;wpjH;fspy; vj;jid egh;fs; ve;j ,lj;jpy; ve;j Ma[jj;jhy; vj;jid kzpf;F jhf;fpdhh;fs; nghd;w tpgu';fs; vJt[k; ,y;iy/ Vw;fdnt 1 Kjy; 3 rhl;rpfs; gpwH;rhl;rpfshf ,Ug;gij fUj;jpy; bfhz;L ghh;f;Fk; nghJ m/rh/M/5. 6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Page 3 of 7

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2022

¶33

fhar;rhd;wpYk; vjpupfspd; vz;zpf;if Fwpj;J. cgnahfg;gLj;jpa Ma[jk; nghd;w tpguk; vJt[k; ,y;iy/ vdnt muR jug;g[f;F mit rhjfkhf ,y;iy vd;nw fUJfpnwd;/ nkw;fz;l R{H;epiyapy; g[ydha;t[ mjpfhup m/rh/7d; rhl;rpaj;ij kl;Lk; itj;J M$h; vjpupfs; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;L muR jug;gpy; vt;tpj Iag;ghLfSf;F mg;ghy; epU:gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhf jPh;khdpf;f ,ayhJ/ ,t;tHf;fpy; 28/2/99-1/3/99 md;W rhl;rpfspd; thf;FK:y';fs; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;ljhf ,Ue;jhYk; Tl nkw;go thf;FK:y';fs; midj;Jk; rk;ge;jg;gl;l ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F 17/11/99 md;W 7 khjk; fhyjhkjkhf brd;wile;jpUg;gJ/ mnj nghy; m/rh/M/1. 2. 4 ifg;gw;Wjy; kf$h;fs;. ghh;it kf$h; MfpaitfSk; 1/3/99 md;W jahh; bra;ag;gl;L ,Ue;jhYk; Tl mitfs; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F 17/11/99 md;W mjhtJ Rkhh; 7 khj fhyk; fhyjhkjkhf brd;wile;Js;sJ/ mnj nghy; m/rh/M/3 ghh;it kf$h;. m/rh/M/9 khjpup tiuglk; MfpaitfSk; 28/2/99 md;W jhahh; bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhYk; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F 17/11/99k; njjp md;W Rkhh; 7 khjk; fhyjhkjkhf brd;wile;Js;sJ/ m/rh/M/5. 6 kUj;Jt rhd;wpjH; Kiwna 15/4/99 bgwg;gl;L ,Ue;Jk; mit ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F 17/11/99y; brd;wile;J ,Ug;gJk;. ,ij midj;Jk;. khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w jPh;g;g[f;F Kuzhf cs;sJ/ nkw;go Mtz';fspd; Kf;fpakhd Mtz';fshf ,Ug;gjpdhy; mitfs; clDf;Fld; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F mDg;gp itf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ Mdhy; mt;thW mDg;gp itf;fg;gltpy;iy/ vdnt nkw;fz;l midj;J fhuz';fisa[k; xU';fpize;J rPh;J}f;fp ghh;f;Fk; nghJ rk;gt ehs;. ,lk;. neuj;jpy; M$h; vjpupfs; jhd; muR jug;gpy; TwtJ nghy; cUl;L fl;ilahy; m/rh/1. 2I jhf;fp bfhiy bra;a Kaw;rp bra;jpUf;fpwhh;fs; vd;gJ vt;tpj Iag;ghLfSf;Fk; mg;ghw;gl;L muR jug;gpy; epU:g;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ ,t;tHf;fpy; Vw;gl;Ls;s re;njf';fspd; gyd;fis vjpupfs; mila jFjpa[ilatuhfpwhh;fs;/ vdnt

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Page 4 of 7

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2022

¶37

vjpupfs; ,/j/r/307 c-,d; gpupt[ 34 go Fw;wthspfs; ,y;iy vd;nw jPh;khdpf;fpnwd;/”

¶38

Therefore, the continuation of Trial as against the petitioner would

¶39

not serve any purpose, since no witness supported the case of the prosecution. Once the main accused viz., A1 to A3, who were alleged to have attacked the defacto complainant with a motive to do away the life of the defacto complainant, were acquitted and when the matter had attained the finality, no purpose would be served by further proceeding with the case as against the petitioner.

¶40

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no wilful

¶41

purpose would be served by putting the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial and as such, the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in S.C.No.268 of 2003, pending on the file of the learned Additional Session Judge/FTC No.4 of Coimbatore in Tirupur, is hereby quashed.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Page 5 of 7

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2022

¶45

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

¶46

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶47

27.11.2023

¶48

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn

¶49

¶50

The Additional Session Judge/FTC No.4 of Coimbatore in Tirupur.

¶51

The Inspector of Police, Tirupur North Police Station, Tirupur District,

¶52

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 7

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2022

¶55

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶56

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2022

¶58

27.11.2023

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 7

S.Selvaraj v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Selvaraj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalaiselvi, Vs Sivasubramanian

M/S.Helios and Matheson Vs the State Rep. by

Ravi Vs Devaki

Raja Vs State Rep by

T.R.Nandakumar Vs a.Chidambaram

Ramaththal Vs the District Collector