Allowed

R.Devendhiran v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Feb 2024CRL OP/6756/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the impugned split charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on the acquittal of co-accused and lack of incriminating evidence against the petitioner, the court allowed the petition and closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.6 of 2012 are quashed and connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

R.Devendhiran Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.6756 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.6756 of 2022 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.3836 & 3837 of 2022

¶8

R.Devendhiran ... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Tittagudi Tk, Cuddalore Dt. (Crime No.540 of 2011)

¶11

S.Senthill

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned split up charge sheet registered in P.R.C.No.6 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Tittagudi in so far as against the petitioner/A2 is concerned.

¶14

Page No.1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.6756 of 2022

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Veeramani For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned split up charge sheet in P.R.C. No. 6 of 2014 on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tittagudi.

¶20

2. Heard both sides.

¶21

The petitioner is ranked as A2 in the F.I.R. in Crime No.540 of

¶22

2011 registered for the offence under Sec.147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 354, 427 of I.P.C. r/w Sec.3(1)(x)(xi) of SC/ST Act r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.6 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tittagudi and the same is pending. Howevr, the case

¶23

Page No.2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.6756 of 2022

¶26

was split up and the case was committed to learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Cuddalore in S.C.No.264 of 2014, in which the A1, A4, A5 and A6 were subjected to trial. Now, the petitioner had filed this petition praying to quash the said charge sheet.

¶27

The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that he was not present in the alleged scene of occurrence and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the 1^st respondent police as per the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant. He would also submit that except this petitioner/A2 and another accused A3, the case was split up in respect of A1, A4, A5 and A6 in S.C.No.264 of 2014, the trial was conducted and finally, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge acquitted them as the prosecution not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this petitioner is also entitled for acquittal and the proceedings initiated against him is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, he prayed to quash the charge sheet initiated against him.

¶28

Page No.3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.6756 of 2022

¶31

On seeing entire facts, it reveals that the specific allegation against this petitioner is that he has actually participated in the alleged overtact. However, during the trial, as per submissions of prosecution, Doctor was also examined and with regard to injury and assault, the prosecution turned hostile and so that, all the accused were acquitted. Furthermore, with regard to the other charges, witnesses P.W.8 and 9, who belong to S.C. community were examined, but there is no evidence on the side of prosecution to prove that this petitioner abused him with obscene words as well as humiliated the victim with a view to insult him in a public place by mentioning his caste name. So, there is no incriminating materials on the side of prosecution against this petitioner and the charges levelled against him was not proved in respect of Special Act. Moreover, the trial court acquitted other accused. Hence, the petitioner is also one of accused and the same charge levelled against him. Therefore, on considering the fact that there is no incriminating evidence as well as material evidence on the side of prosecution for the alleged offence said to be committed by this petitioner. So, he is also entitled for

¶32

Page No.4 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.6756 of 2022

¶35

acquittal, thereby the impugned charge sheet in P.R.C.No.6 of 2012 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the impugned split up charge sheet in P.R.C.No.6 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tittagudi is quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶36

05.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rpp

¶37

¶38

The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Tittagudi Tk, Cuddalore Dt.

¶39

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶40

Page No.5 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.6756 of 2022

¶43

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶44

rpp

¶45

CRL.O.P.No.6756 of 2022

¶46

05.02.2024

¶47

Page No.6 of 6

¶48

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

R.Devendhiran v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Devendhiran v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Jayashree Vs M.Tamilselvan

U.Djegodiche @ Ramakrishnan @ Sathish Vs the Station House Officer

K.Radha Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Arivusudar Vs the State Rep.by

Manager Vs Mohammed Ghouse

Manager Vs Mohammed Ghouse