The Criminal Original Petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed. The Court held that the death of the de facto complainant and filing delay did not justify quashing, as other eyewitnesses were available to testify regarding the assault and injuries.
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.
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.02.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021 and CRL.MP.No.3510 of 2021
...Petitioners
-Vs-
... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records relating in C.C.No.69 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 ***
ORDER
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to C.C.No.69 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram and quash the same.
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021
of the first respondent submitted that the charge sheet witnesses LW-2 to 5 are the mother and neighbours of the deceased 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant and they are eye-witnesses for the occurrence. Even if the defacto complainant died, the materials are available to prove the alleged occurrence that had taken place on 12.05.2016 at the house of the 6th accused. Hence, the petitioners should be subjected to trial.
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021
claim that the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC will not be made out or proved, the same can be established only through the process of trial. When there are materials to show that the deceased 2nd respondent was assaulted and he had suffered injuries, it is for the prosecution to establish before the trial Court about the nature of the injuries sustained by him. Again this fact is a matter for trial and it cannot be foreclosed now even without subjecting the accused to undergo trial.
Malick and Another Vs. State , wherein it is held as under:-
“6.More importantly, I am informed that, the defacto complainant had unfortunately expired. A perusal of the list of witnesses, filed along with the final report shows that it is only the de-facto complainant who is the material witness. LW-2 is an employee and he only speak about the records, but he cannot speak about the motive or about the inter se
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021
relationship between the 1st petitioner and defacto complainant. LW-3 to LW-6 were witnesses for the mahazer prepared in the course of investigation and also for the confession recorded. They cannot speak about the transactions alleged to be unlawful by the defacto complainant.
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021
07.02.2023
Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order
Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No
kmi
To
Chennai-600 060.
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J
kmi
Crl.O.P.No.5419 of 2021
07.02.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the death of the de facto complainant and delay in filing charge sheet warrant quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the existence of other eyewitnesses necessitates a trial despite the unavailability of the de facto complainant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Malick and Another Vs. StateDistinguished¶35
Abdul Malick and Another Vs. State
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kameshwaran
Karthick
Sridharan
M. Karthick
M.Anadhageethan
Inspector of Police, M-2, Milk Colony Police Station, Madhavaram
R.N. MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
