Allowed¶35

Kathirvel v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Apr 2025CRL OP(MD)/20149/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quash allowed — CRL.OP(MD) No.20149 of 2022, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, R. Sakthivel J., 17.04.2025. Proceedings in C.C.No.186 of 2022 (District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai) quashed qua petitioner/Accused No.3 Kathirvel; FIR Crime No.452 of 2021 under Sections 294(b), 448, 326, 506(1) IPC; final report under Sections 294(b), 448, 506(1), 324, 323 IPC; no material connecting petitioner except defacto complainant and wife's statements; no independent witnesses; deletion report excluding petitioner; S.319 CrPC contention raised by defence; connected MPs closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.186 of 2022 quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned; connected miscellaneous petitions (CRL.MP(MD) Nos.13932 and 13933 of 2022) closed.

Kathirvel Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.186 of 2022 against the petitioner (Accused No.3) are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for want of prima facie material connecting him with the offence.

¶10

Court's answer

There are no materials available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence, except for the statements of the defacto complainant and his wife; no independent witnesses have been examined.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming the allegations to be true, the offence as alleged is not made out against the petitioner.

¶34

Key takeaways

The continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is without justification and liable to be quashed; accordingly, C.C.No.186 of 2022 is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.186 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District, quashed insofar as the petitioner (Kathirvel, Accused No.3) is concerned. The case arose out of Crime No.452 of 2021 (FIR dated 13.09.2021 under Sections 294(b), 448, 326 and 506(1) IPC; final report under Sections 294(b), 448, 506(1), 324 and 323 IPC) alleging damage to the defacto complainant's wall, assault, abuse and setting a dog on him. Held: there are no materials on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence except the statements of the defacto complainant and his wife, no independent witnesses having been examined; even assuming the allegations to be true, the offence as alleged is not made out against the petitioner; continuation of proceedings against him is without justification. Both sides had stated that the police had earlier filed a deletion report excluding the petitioner on the ground that he was not present at the scene, and had proceeded only against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed. Coram: R. Sakthivel, J. Decided 17.04.2025.

¶1

CRL.OP (MD) No.20149 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

CRL.OP(MD) No.20149 of 2022 and CRL.MP(MD). Nos.13932 and 13933 of 2022

¶7

Kathirvel ... Petitioner / Accused No.3

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thirumayam Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.452 of 2021) ...1^st Respondent/Complainant 2.Shanmuganathan ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records relating to C.C.No.186 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar, Advocate For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

CRL.OP (MD) No.20149 of 2022

¶15

For R2 : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan, Advocate

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed on 11.11.2022 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash C.C.No.186 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on 11.09.2021, at about 11:00 hours, the first and second accused persons, along with the petitioner, damaged the wall of the defacto complainant to lay a pathway. When the defacto complainant questioned this act, the petitioner and the other accused assaulted the defacto complainant, abused him in filthy language and commanded their dog to bite the defacto complainant, thereby causing bite injury. Based on this, FIR was registered by the first respondent-police against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 448, 326, and 506(1) of IPC on 13.09.2021 at about 20:30 hours. After completion of investigation, the first respondent-police filed the final report against the accused persons

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

CRL.OP (MD) No.20149 of 2022

¶22

for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 448, 506(1), 324 and 323 of IPC. The same was taken on file by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam in C.C.No.186 of 2022. Hence, the case.

¶23

Mr.D.Rameshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits

¶24

that the summon issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate is contrary to law and the factual aspects of the case. He contends that no prima facie material is available against the petitioner, and the learned Magistrate failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. prior to issuing the summons. He further submits that there is no evidence against the petitioner in C.C.No.186 of 2022, and hence, issuance of summons is wholly unjustified. The respondent-police had already filed a deletion report excluding the petitioner and proceeded with the final report only against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Issuing summons without taking note of the said deletion report is improper and legally unsustainable. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance against the petitioner in the absence of any material. Accordingly, he prays to allow the Criminal Original Petition.

¶25

3/6

¶26

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

¶27

CRL.OP (MD) No.20149 of 2022

¶28

Per contra , Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-police, submits that after a full-fledged enquiry, the first respondent-police filed a deletion report before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, removing the petitioner’s name on the ground that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. Subsequently, a final report was filed against the first and second accused alone, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No. 186 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, wherein the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused.

¶29

This Court has heard on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are no materials available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence, except for the statements of the defacto complainant and his wife. No independent witnesses have been examined. Even

¶31

4/6

¶32

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

¶33

CRL.OP (MD) No.20149 of 2022

¶34

assuming the allegations to be true, the offence as alleged is not made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is without justification and is liable to be quashed. In the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.186 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶35