Allowed

R.Rasu v. State Rep by

Madras HC25 Oct 2024CRL OP/2480/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cricket organiser-accused sought quashing of an FIR under Section 304 IPC after a player died when hit by a cork ball during a match. Holding the deceased voluntarily participated with no intention or knowledge of fatal harm, the court invoked Section 87 IPC and allowed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.1510 of 2020 quashed; complainant permitted to seek compensation via DLSA Thiruvallur; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

R.Rasu Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.2480 & 2483 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.Nos.2480 & 2483 of 2024

¶7

& Crl.M.P.Nos.1780 & 1783 of 2024

¶8

Crl.O.P.No.2480 of 2024

¶9

R.Rasu. ... Petitioner/Accused-3 /versus/

¶10

1. State Rep. by, Inspector of Police, Pullarambakkam Police Station, Thiruvallur District. (Crime No.1510/2020). ... 1 st Respondent/Complainant

¶11

2. Dhamodhiran, S/o.Nandhan, No.143, Bajanai Kovil Street, Punnapakkam Village, Ikkadu Post, Thiruvallur – 602 021. ... 2 nd Respondent/defacto Complainant

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., pleased t o call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.1510 of 2020 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanabhavan For R1 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.Dhamodhiran, Party-in-person

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.2483 of 2024

¶15

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

¶16

1/7

¶17

Crl.O.P.Nos.2480 & 2483 of 2024

¶18

P.Iyappan. ... Petitioner/Accused-4 /versus/ 1. State Rep. by, Inspector of Police, Pullarambakkam Police Station, Thiruvallur District. (Crime No.1510/2020). ... 1 st Respondent/Complainant 2. Dhamodhiran, S/o.Nandhan, No.143, Bajanai Kovil Street, Punnapakkam Village, Ikkadu Post, Thiruvallur – 602 021. ... 2 nd Respondent/defacto Complainant

¶19

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., pleased t o call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.1510 of 2020 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

¶20

For Petitioner	: Mr.G.Saravanabhavan
For R1	: Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,
	Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2	: Mr.Dhamodhiran, Party-in-person

¶21

¶22

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶23

On 13.12.2020, Mr.Loganathan, III year, Law College student

¶24

while playing cricket along with his friend in a ground near Othikkadu Lake sustained injury and was hit by a cork ball on his chest and succumb to injury.

¶25

The petitioners are the organizer of said the cricket match and therefore, case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7

¶26

Crl.O.P.Nos.2480 & 2483 of 2024

¶27

been registered against them for the offence under Section 304 of I.P.C.

¶28

2. The petitioners are before this Court stating that in the match between Punnapakkam Cricket Club and Puthuvallur Cricket Club, Loganathan was hit by a cork ball and died.

¶29

3 . Rasu who is the 3 rd accused/petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2480/2024

¶30

claims that he was not even present in the ground at the time of occurrence and he was writing his Grade-II Constable Selection test at Sri Ram Educational Institutions, Perumalpattu. Whereas, P.Iyappan who is the 4 th accused/petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2483 of 2024 claims that he is the organiser of the cricket match and he did not involved in the occurrence.

¶31

4 . Reading of Section 87 of Indian Penal Court and the Principle of

¶32

volenti non fit injuria, the petitioners claim that the allegation made in the F.I.R,

¶33

even taken on the face value and accepted in entirety, they did not constitute any offence.

¶34

Section 304 of I.P.C for the petitioner facing trial, reads as below:-

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7

¶36

Crl.O.P.Nos.2480 & 2483 of 2024

¶37

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.-

¶38

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

¶39

5 . The above provision can be invoked only if there is any overt act on the part of the accused.

¶40

6. Reading of the F.I.R in entirety indicates that the accusation

¶41

against these petitioners is for organizing a match using cork ball. It is common in this part of the Country, youth play cricket using cork ball. Playing cricket using cork ball is not prohibited. While so, from the material, it is patently clear that in the course of game, the ball hit by one Meshak (Batsman) with his bat

¶42

had hit Loganathan who was in the field. Unfortunately, the cork ball hit on his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7

¶43

Crl.O.P.Nos.2480 & 2483 of 2024

¶44

chest, which led to his death. The deceased Loganthan has voluntarily participated in the match and got injured. Neither the batsman nor the organiser had intention to cause death or hurt to Loganathan. Therefore, Section 87 of I.P.C., exception squarely attracts to the case in hand.

¶45

7. For sake of clarity, illustration to Section 87 of I.P.C alone is extracted below which will fortify the above view of this Court.

¶46

“A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.”

¶47

8. The complainant who is the father of Loganathan present before this Court on notice. He submits that being a victim, he may be provided atleast with compensation.

¶48

9. Taking note of the submission, the complainant/Dhamodiran is directed to make a representation to the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Thiruvallur within a period of two months. On receipt of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7

¶49

Crl.O.P.Nos.2480 & 2483 of 2024

¶50

representation, The Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Thiruvallur, explore the scheme available to provide compensation to the petitioner and shall forward his recommendation to the District Collector within a period of two months. On receipt of the recommendation, appropriate order to be passed by the District Collector, Thiruvallur, within a period of two months.

¶51

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. The complaint in F.I.R.No.1510 of 2020 on the file of the 1^st respondent police is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶52

25.10.2024

¶53

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bsm Note: Registry is directed to serve copy of this order to the complainant/N.Dhamodhiran at free of costs. To, 1. The Inspector of Police, Pullarambakkam Police Station, Thiruvallur District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶54

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶55

bsm

¶56

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

¶57

6/7

¶58

Crl.O.P.Nos.2480 & 2483 of 2024

¶59

Crl.O.P.Nos.2480 & 2483 of 2024

¶60

25.10.2024

¶61

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

R.Rasu v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rasu 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

C.Duraikannu Vs Assistant Commissioner Ofpolice

Senthilkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

L.Albert Vs S.Balaji

V.Selvaraj Vs State by

Eswaran Vs State by

R.Shanthi Vs Murugesan