Allowed

Kalidoss v. State Rep by

Madras HC11 Jun 2024CRL OP/10851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the final report in a communal riot case. The Court held that the petitioner's conviction cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated confession of a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; criminal prosecution against the petitioner quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Kalidoss Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.10851 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.OP.No.10851 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.MP.Nos.7408 and 7409 of 2024

¶9

Kalidoss ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1. The State

¶12

Represented by The Inspector of Police, Muthupet Police Station, Muthupet, Thiruvarur District. (Cr.No.337 of 2007).

¶13

2. Dhanapal Village Admininstrative Officer, Muthupettai, Muthupet, Thiruvarur District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to P.R.C.No.25 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipundi and quash the same.

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

Crl.OP.No.10851 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Suriya

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Pursuant to the registration of the case in Cr.No.337 of 2017 in

¶22

connection with communal riot at Muthupet on 10.12.2007, the prosecution has filed final report against 39 persons for the offence under Sections 148, 436, 450, 452, 307 IPC r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) of T.N.P.(P.D and L) Act r/w 34 of IPC. The final report in PRC.No.25 of 2022 filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi not

¶23

been committed so far.

¶24

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an open

¶25

F.I.R registered by the respondent police and the name of this petitioner

¶26

been shown as A15 just because, he is resident of that Village. He further submitted that none of the witnesses in the 161 Statement had mentioned

¶27

the name of this petitioner. While so, he has been falsely implicated in this

¶28

case and after 15 years of occurrence, final report filed including the name

¶29

of this petitioner who is no way connected with the occurrence.

¶30

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

¶31

2/5

¶32

Crl.OP.No.10851 of 2024

¶33

3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

¶34

respondent police after notice reports that the final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court in P.R.C.No.25 of 2022 yet to be committed to the court of sessions and in so far as the averments made by the petitioner herein in the quash petition. He further states that though the name of the petitioner not been mentioned in the FIR, but the investigation reveals that he was present along with the other members of the unlawful assembly and therefore, he has to face the trial. He also submits that the confession statement of one of the accused by name Nithaiyan, the overt act of this petitioner been spoken and therefore not a fit case to quash the final report.

¶35

4. The case of communal riot in a town which has led to damage of public property and simple hurt to the members of the other community. F.I.R registered against known and unknown persons. After 15 years final report been filed and even after filing final report, for the past two years not been committed to the Court of Sessions.

¶36

5. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶37

no witness as mentioned this petitioner for any overt act. Only

¶38

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

¶39

3/5

¶40

Crl.OP.No.10851 of 2024

¶41

incriminating material is the alleged confession statement of one Nithaiyan.

¶42

This Court is of the view that the confession statement of co-accused without corroboration can not stand the test of judicial scrutiny for conviction of the alleged offence.

¶43

6. Accordingly Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The criminal prosecution against this petitioner stands quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

11.06.2024

1. The Inspector of Police,

¶48

Muthupet Police Station,

¶49

Muthupet, Thiruvarur District.

¶50

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶51

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

¶52

4/5

¶53

Crl.OP.No.10851 of 2024

¶54

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶55

¶56

Crl.OP.No.10851 of 2024 and Crl.MP.Nos.7408 and 7409 of 2024

¶57

11.06.2024

¶58

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

¶59

5/5

Kalidoss v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalidoss 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

Pramila Vs State Rep by

V.Muruganantham Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

R.Thirumavalavan @ Thol.Thirumavalavan Vs the State Rep. by

P.Anbarasu Vs P.Thiyagarajan

M.S.Vishnupriya Vs State by

Thabrize Basha Vs the Superintendent of Police