Dismissed

S.Sivapatham v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC8 Jun 2023CRL OP/4545/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash Criminal Case No.315 of 2022. Discussed discrepancies in FIR regarding victim's treatment status and dropped charges. Court held discrepancies are trial matters and sufficient materials exist for trial. Rejected quashment petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

S.Sivapatham Vs the State Rep by Its — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4545 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4545 of 2023 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.2853 and 2855 of 2023

¶8

1.S.Sivapatham

¶9

2.S.Ashok Kumar

¶10

3.Sivakumaran

¶11

4.S.Mahalakshmi

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, T.Palur Police Station, Ariyalur District.

¶15

2.Tamilselvan

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the C.C.No.315 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court. No.1 at Jayamkondam and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Ramu

¶19

For R-1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶20

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

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.4545 of 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.315 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court. No.1, Jayamkondam and quash the same.

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, petitioners are prosecuted in C.C.No.315 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Jayamkondam for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and 379 IPC and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. It is the submission of the petitioners that, it is alleged in the first information report that, complaint of the petitioners was recorded, while the defacto complainant/2 nd respondent was taking treatment as in-patient at Government Hospital, Jayankondam. However, a copy of the Accident Register of the 2 nd respondent shows that, he was treated as out-patient on 16.09.2021 and therefore, claim made in the first information report and statement of the 2 nd respondent was recorded at Government Hospital, Jayankondam, when he was taking treatment as in-patient is totally false.

¶26

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, though the

¶27

first information report was registered for the offences 376 IPC, this Section Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.4545 of 2023

¶30

was dropped while filing final report, without filing alteration report for altering the Sections. When there is a counter case, respondent police has not investigated the counter case, registered in Crime No.546 of 2021, but final report was filed only in Crime No.547 of 2021. It is a violation of the Police Standing Order 588A. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for quashment of C.C.No.315 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court. No.1, Jayamkondam.

¶31

3. In response, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted

¶32

that, discrepancies in the first information report and Accident Register with regard to treatment given to the petitioner, whether he was taking treatment as an in-patient or out-patient and date of recording of his statement can only be clarified by the police officer, who registered the first information report during the course of trial. That aspect cannot be considered now. Section 379 IPC was dropped in the final report, for the reason that, offence was not made out. In the counter case in Crime No.546 of 2021, investigation is completed and final report is ready and will be filed in due course of time.

¶33

4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶34

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

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.4545 of 2023

¶37

5. Insofar as this case is concerned, first information report allegations

¶38

are that, on 16.09.2021, at about 3.00 p.m., when the 2 nd respondent was ploughing his land with tractor, accidentally a tree was damaged. Therefore, the accused, Sivapatham, Ashok had come there, scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language, pushed him out from the tractor. Sivapatham hit him with a wooden log and Ashok hit him with wooden stick on his head. Sivapatham bite defacto complainant's right thumb. When defacto complainant's mother Lalitha tried to interfere, Sivapatham and his wife Mahalakshmi pulled her hair and assaulted her with hands and accused made criminal intimidation. During the course of incident, accused had also stolen gold chain of defacto complainant. Defacto complainant had given a statement supporting the allegations made in the complaint. This statement was supported by the Statement of Lalitha, Azhagar and Ramachandran. Dr.Sundharavadhani had given a statement, stating that, 2 nd respondent suffered simple injury.

¶39

5.1. Though there are certain discrepancies pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, with regard to the place where the statement of 2 nd respondent was recorded and date on which statement was recorded, this Court is of the view that, these discrepancies can be clarified by the witnesses, only

¶40

during the course of trial. Leaving these discrepancies apart, this Court finds https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 6

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.4545 of 2023

¶42

that, there are enough materials available to frame appropriate charges against

¶43

the petitioners for proceedings with the trial. In the counter complaint case, investigation is also over and final report will be filed soon. This Court finds that, there is no merits for seeking quashment of C.C.No.315 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court. No.1 at Jayamkondam.

¶44

6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶45

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶46

08.06.2023

¶47

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order gd

¶48

¶49

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court. No.1, Jayamkondam.

¶50

The Inspector of Police, T.Palur Police Station, Ariyalur District.

¶51

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶52

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

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.4545 of 2023

¶55

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J.,

¶56

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.4545 of 2023

¶58

08.06.2023

¶59

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

¶60

Page 6 of 6

S.Sivapatham v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sivapatham v. the State Rep by Its

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

Selvaraj Vs State Rep by

Garden Super Market Vs P.S.Security Agency

R.Thiyagu Vs State Rep by Inspector of Police

C.Balu Vs The Inspector of Police

Pappachi @ Pappana @ Pappuraj Vs Inspector of Police

R.Vinothkumar Vs State Rep.by