Madras High Court
Ramamoorthy vs The State By on 25 August, 2021
Crl.OP.No.11344/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 25.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.OP.No.11344/2016 & Crl.MP.No.5812/2016
[Video Conferencing]
Ramamoorthy ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State by
The Inspector of Police
Walajapettai Police Station
Vellore District.
2.C.Karunakaran
3.State by the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Ranipet Sub Division
Vellore District. ... Respondent
Prayer : - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
calling for the records of PRC No.10/2015 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Walajapettai and quash the same as against the petitioner
herein whose name has been shown as accused No.11 in the above PRC
No.10/2015.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.11344/2016
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Desingh
For RR 1 & 3 : Mr.Suganthan
Government Advocate [Crl.Side] for
Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(1) It is a very unfortunate case where the First Information Report [FIR]
which had been lodged on 04.02.2011 for alleged offences under
Sections 147, 148, 294[b], 323, 324, 434, 435, 447 and 506[ii] of IPC
read with section 3[x] of the Prohibition of Atrocities against
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, had not progressed to its
logical conclusion. The investigation had progressed and a Final
Report had been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Walajapet. Thereafter, owing to the present Criminal Original
Petition filed by the petitioner herein / A-11, stay had been granted,
the matter has not even been committed to the Court of Sessions for
trial. The accused have not appeared. There is a right for speedy trial
by the accused. But, when stay is granted for such a lengthy period of
five years, then the very purpose of such rule of law is defeated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.11344/2016
(2) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt
Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and Others, had given very strong
guidelines with respect to interference by the High Courts in petitions
filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash proceedings. The said
judgment had been reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315. It had been
stated that the Court should not thwart any investigation into
cognizable offences and that the power of quashing should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. It had also been
stated that the Court cannot also embark on an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or in the complaint.
(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the name of the
petitioner / A-11 was not mentioned in the FIR. It is the case of the
complainant himself, according to the learned counsel that two days
prior to the incident, the petitioner herein/A-11 along with the other
accused, had a wordy quarrel with the defacto complainant / injured
person. The learned counsel however, pointed out that on the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.11344/2016
occurrence on 04.12.2015, the presence of the petitioner was not
mentioned by the defacto complainant. It is, therefore, stated that the
Investigating Officer with an oblique motive had arrayed the present
petitioner as A-11 even in the absence of any material as against the
present petitioner herein.
(4) However, this statement is controverted by Mr.Suganthan, learned
Government Advocate [Crl.Side] representing the learned Public
Prosecutor, who stated that the offences attracted even the provisions
under the SC/ST Act and therefore pointed out that trial is the only
answer to determine the role of the accused in the offences. At this
stage, only statements of the witnesses are alone available and the
case has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions. The
charges have not yet been framed. There is no reason why the
petitioner could not advance the very same arguments now presented
before this Court at the time of framing charges and insist upon the
Court to discharge him.
(5) I am not entering into any discussion on merits. But, at this stage of
the proceedings, it would only be advisable that the matter is left to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.11344/2016
the discretion of the particular Court where the trial is to take place
and where charges are to be framed to determine the role of the
petitioner herein. As far as the Final Report is concerned, the
Investigating Officer has his reasons for arraying the present
petitioner as an accused and that can be tested only during the course
of trial and the Investigating Officer can very well be cross examined
as to the reason why the present petitioner had been arrayed as an
accused. Interference at this stage, is not warranted.
(6) I should express regret that the matter has been pending before the
High Court for more than five years without any hearing also. Let the
matter be reverted back to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Walajapet and let committal proceedings proceed further and let the
case proceed further in accordance with law.
(7) With the above observations, the criminal original petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.08.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.11344/2016
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2
Walajapet.
2.The Inspector of Police
Walajapettai Police Station
Vellore District.
3.The Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Ranipet Sub Division
Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.11344/2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
Crl.OP.No.11344/2016
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
