Madras High Court
Dharuman vs 2 Siva Kumar on 18 February, 2021
1 CRL OP.No.19868 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.19868 of 2021
and Crl MP No.10165 of 2019
1. Dharuman
2. Kodiyappan
3. Rajamma .. Petitioners
Vs.
1 THE STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VEPPANAPALLI POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
(REF. CRIME NO.27/2018 DATED 09.02.2018).
2 SIVA KUMAR
S/O.MR.DHORLIYAPPA, CHITTAPURAM ,
KURIYANAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KRISHNAGIRI.
.. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.45/2018 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri for offences under
Sections 294(b) 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 CRL OP.No.19868 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arun Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
R2 – No appearance
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in C.C.No.45/2018 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Krishnagiri.
2. It is seen from records that there was a case and
counter and based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, an
FIR came to be registered in Crime No.27 of 2018 against the
petitioners and based on the complaint given by the 1st petitioner, an
FIR came to be registered against the 2nd respondent and others in
Crime No.26 of 2018. Both the FIRs were registered for an offence
under Section 294(b), 324 ad 506(ii) IPC.
3. The respondent police after investigation has filed a
final report in both the FIR's and the same has been taken cognizance
by the Court below in C.C.No.45 of 2018 and 43 of 2018, respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Mohammed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of 1st respondent. The name of the 2nd respondent has been
printed in the cause list and there is no representation either in person
or through counsel.
5. The main ground that has been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that insofar as the incident against the
petitioners, the same is inherently improbable and it was a counter
blast for the earlier complaint given by the 1st petitioner. The learned
counsel further submitted that the respondent police did not properly
investigate both the FIRs in line with police standing orders.
6. A careful reading of both the final reports filed by
the respondent police clearly reveals the fact that no attempt has
been made by the respondent police to identify the actual aggressor in
the present case. The investigation has been conducted in a
perfunctory manner and the final report has been mechanically filed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
both the complaints. Therefore, the final report filed in both the
complaints are liable to be interfered by this Court. Useful reference
can be made to the judgment of this Court in [Kumar and others Vs.
State by Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Namakkal
District and another] in 2019 4 MLJ Crl 445 and 2019 2 LW Crl
7. In view of the above, this Court has absolutely no
hesitation to interfere with the proceedings before the Court below
and accordingly, the proceedings in both CC No.45 of 2018 and 43 of
2018 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is
allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
18.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rka
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri
2. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VEPPANAPALLI POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
(REF. CRIME NO.27/2018 DATED 09.02.2018).
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rka
Crl.O.P.No.19868 of 2019
18.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
