Madras High Court
K.Jeyaraj vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 August, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8735 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.4476 of 2021
1.K.Jeyaraj
2.K.Jeyaraj ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Tallakulam H.1 Police Station,
Madurai District.
Crime No.418 of 1996
2.Mariappan ..Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.31 of 1998 pending on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/12
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking quashment of the case in P.R.C.No.31
of 1998 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:-
3.The 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant in Crime
No.418 of 1996, which was registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 343 and 506 (ii) of IPC against 6 persons. Out of the 6 persons,
3 were named in the FIR and 3 were unnamed. On the basis of the
complaint given by the 2nd respondent, investigation was undertaken and
final report was filed, making allegations that all the accused persons,
namely, 7 members including one Jeyaraj, S/o.Krishnamoorthy, were
charged for the offences punishable under Sections 343, 366 and 506 (ii)
of IPC r/w Section 109 of IPC. Against the 7th accused, final report has
been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 343 and 506 (ii) of
IPC r/w Section 109 of IPC.
4.The case of the prosecution as found in the final report is that
the daughter of the 2nd respondent was studying 3rd year in Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
Medical College. On 11.03.1996 at about 09.00 am., when the defacto
complainant, namely, Sujatha was on the way to the college, the 4th
accused took her to Shenoy Nagar, where, the 5 th accused was waiting in
a car. They lifted the said Sujatha and abducted her with the help of the
accused 1 and 4. She was taken to Manis Lodge and kept in Room No.2
and later in Room No.55. The 7th accused came to the room and
threatened the victim to marry the 1st accused. Later, she was taken to
Rajeswari Lodge and kept in Room No.304. Later on 12.03.1996, she
was taken to the Surya Nagar and she was detained there. There also, she
was threatened and on 14.03.1996, she was dropped near her house. So,
on the basis of the aforesaid complaint as mentioned above, a case has
been registered and final report has been filed after collecting materials
and recording the statement of the witnesses.
5.In the final report, the 7th accused was shown as one Jeyaraj.
Since warrant was pending against him, the case was split up against him
and the remaining accused were tried in P.R.C.No.19 of 1997 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai. Later, the case was
committed to the III Additional Sessions Court, Madurai. During the
course of trial proceedings, all the witnesses turned hostile. So, it ended
in acquittal on 14.03.2000.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
6.Since warrant was issued against the 7th accused, the case against
him was split up and assigned P.R.C.No.31 of 1998. Now it is in the
committal stage. This petitioner herein during the relevant time of the
trial proceedings was working as Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ramanathapuram. During that time, a charge memo was issued to him
stating that pendency of the criminal case against him has been
suppressed, while joining the service. The petitioner is not an accused
and noway involved in the said occurrence. However, due to the
misidentification of the father's name, a wrong information has been
given to the effect that this petitioner involved in the aforesaid
occurrence. On the basis of the report given by the police, the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai sent a letter dated 13.09.2011 to the
Registrar (Admin) attached to this Bench informing about the split up
case. So, based upon that, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner and
after a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from the
departmental proceedings.
7.The petitioner was working as 6th Additional Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai. On 08.01.2021, he submitted an application for
voluntary retirement from service. It was allowed and he retired from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
service from 30.04.2021. Since the petitioner has been wrongly
implicated in the aforesaid case, this petition came to be filed seeking
quashment.
8.Heard both sides.
9.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side), notice to the 2nd
respondent, who is the defacto complainant herein, was dispensed, since
in the parent case, namely, S.C.No.142 of 1998, he turned hostile and did
not support his own case before the Court. So, on the basis of the
available records, the matter was heard.
10.The counsel for the petitioner straight away relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sat Kumar Vs. the State of
Haryana reported in AIR 1974 SC 294, it has been held that simply
because some of the accused persons were acquitted, there is no ruling
that the co-accused must also be acquitted. It has been further observed
that where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and
indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the
remaining accused cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
evidence. This is the cautious note that has been struck by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court while dealing with acquittal in parent cases.
11.Taking a guidance from this judgment, we will go to the
evidence available on record that has been let in by the prosecution in
S.C.No.142 of 1998. The judgment copy dated 14.03.2020 is made
available to this Court by the petitioner.
12.As per the case of the prosecution, the 7th accused, namely,
Jeyaraj was practising as an Advocate and he was a close relative of the
1st accused. A specific charge against him is that he threatened the victim
to marry the 1st accused, as mentioned earlier. The other accused were
charged differently. The accused 2, 3 and 7 were charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 343 and 506 (ii) of IPC r/w Section 109 of
IPC.
13.It appears that the charge against this petitioner is one and the
same. The accused 2 and 3, namely, Nithyanantham and Sagunthala also
participated in the trial proceedings and the evidence were let in. During
the course of evidence of P.W1, the defacto complainant stated that on
11.03.1996, the victim, namely, Sujatha did not return to the house till
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
evening hours. So, he gave a complaint before the Tallakulam Police
Station. On the next day, she returned to the house. He also disowned the
contents of the complaint. He was treated as hostile and cross examined
by the prosecution.
14.During the cross-examination, a suggestion was made to the
defacto complainant to the effect that the accused 4 and 5, namely,
Almara and Predith abducted and kidnapped the victim through a lorry.
That fact was denied by him. Similarly, the mother of the victim also
turned hostile and stated that since the victim did not return to the house,
P.W1 lodged a complaint.
15.P.W3 is the victim girl. During the chief examination, she stated
that on the particular date, there was a delay in returning the house and
only because of that, P.W1 gave a complaint and except that, nothing
happened. During cross-examination, she also stated that she was not
kidnapped or detained or assaulted. P.W4 was the Inspector during the
relevant time. He stated that based upon the complaint given by P.W1, a
case has been registered and investigation was undertaken and final
report has been filed, after completing the investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
16.From the reading of the entire evidence that has been let in the
aforesaid sessions case, it is seen that not only P.W1 turned hostile but
also even the victim turned hostile. So, during the course of arguments,
the counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a love affair between
the 1st accused and the victim girl. Because of that, complaint has been
given by the father of the victim girl, who did not like the affair. But,
whatever it may be, now it is seen that the evidence that has been let in in
S.C.No.142 of 1998 is one and the same that is going to be let against
this petitioner in P.R.C.No.31 of 1998. So, as stated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the evidences now are inseparable
from the one that is going to be let in by the prosecution, if the trial is
ordered in P.R.C.No.31 of 1998. So, conviction is not possible, on the
basis of the evidence that has been going to be let in by the prosecution.
So, no useful purpose will be served. The benefit that has been extended
to the co-accused may also be extended to this petitioner also.
17.The petitioner's stand that he is not the real accused as
mentioned in the First Information Report may not be correct on records.
For the purpose of identifying the real accused, a report has been called
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
for from the 1st respondent herein. He informed this Court, vide letter
dated 03.08.2021 that the person, namely Jeyaraj, who is arrayed as 7th
accused and the petitioner is one and the same person. So, the contention
on the part of the petitioner that he is not the real accused person in the
matter cannot be correct. But, whatever it may be, now the parent case
ended in acquittal. So, the benefit can be extended to this petitioner also,
in view of the aforesaid settled position of law. Even though a number
other judgments have also been cited by the counsel for the petitioner, it
is not necessary to go into those judgments as it may be superfluous.
18.In the result, this petition is liable to be allowed and
accordingly, the same is allowed. The proceedings in P.R.C.No.31 of
1998 in the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, stands quashed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No 25.08.2021
Internet : Yes/No
mm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Madurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
mm
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8735 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10883 of 2021
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
