Rajesh @ Jacob vs State Represented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 4631 Mad

                                                                                     Crl.R.C.No.106 of 2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 23.02.2021

                                                            CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                 Crl.R.C.No.106 of 2021 and
                                                  Crl.M.P.No.1998 of 2021

                1.Rajesh @ Jacob
                2.Selvam @ Selvaraj
                3.Sathish Kumar                                                     ... Petitioners
                                                             Vs.
                State Represented by,
                Inspector of Police,
                T2, Ambattur Estate Police Station,
                Chennai.                                                            ... Respondent

                PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
                Criminal Procedure Code, to allow this Criminal Revision Petition by set aside
                the order passed by the learned III Additional District Sessions Judge,
                Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee in Crl.M.P.No.57 of 2020 dated 11.01.2021 in
                S.C.No.61 of 2020 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions
                Judge, Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee.

                                    For Petitioners     :    Mr.S.Suresh

                                    For Respondent      :    Mr.K.Madhan
                                                             Government Advocate [Crl. Side]

                                                             *****
                                                            ORDER

The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.669 of 2016,

for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners and yet another.

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

Crl.R.C.No.106 of 2021

After completion of investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet and

the same was committed to the learned III Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Thiruvallur @ Poonamallee and the same was taken on file as S.C.No.61

of 2020. After completing formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the matter

was posted for framing of charges. At that time, the petitioners, who are

arrayed as A2 to A4 in this case, have filed a petition under Section 227

Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.57 of 2020 in S.C.No.61 of 2020 to discharge them

from the case. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Thiruvallur @ Poonamallee, by order, dated 11.01.2021, citing the various

Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, other High Courts and also this Court,

dismissed the discharge petition on the ground that the materials available

would make out a prima facie case against the petitioners and also

incriminating materials is found and the defence taken by the petitioners can be

decided during trial and not at this stage. Challenging the same, the petitioners

are before this Court by way of filing the criminal revision.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners were not involved in any offence as alleged by the prosecution and

the statement of witnesses did not disclose that the petitioners have provoked or

induced the deceased to commit suicide. He would further submit that mere https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.R.C.No.106 of 2021

uttering the words will not satisfy the requirements of Section 107 IPC and

bring the petitioners within the purview of Section 306 IPC. Hence, the order

passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are to be

discharged from the case.

3.The learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] appearing on behalf of

the respondent would submit that the list of witnesses cited in the charge sheet

have clearly spoken about the involvement of the petitioners in this case. He

would further submit that the materials collected along with the charge sheet

are suffice to prove the prima facie case against the petitioners. Hence, the

petitioners are not entitled for discharge as there are sufficient materials

available to frame charge against them and the trial Court has rightly dismissed

the petition, which does not warrant interference.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Government Advocate [Crl. Side] and perused the materials available on

record.

5.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased committed suicide by

leaving suicide note, based on which, the respondent Police have registered a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.R.C.No.106 of 2021

case in Crime No.669 of 2016 against the petitioners and yet another for

offence under Section 306 IPC. The deceased is the son of the defacto

complainant. The deceased left the suicide note by mentioning the name of the

petitioners that the petitioners are the reason for his death. After completing

the investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet arraying the

petitioners as A2 to A4 and yet another as A1.

6.A reading of the materials placed before this Court, it is found that

there is prima facie materials available against the petitioners. While deciding

the petition filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Court has to see the materials

filed by the prosecution along with the charge sheet filed under Section 173(2)

Cr.P.C., and not the defence taken by the accused. The learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that there was a matrimonial dispute between the

deceased and his wife. Due to wordy quarrel, the 1st petitioner/A2 was

assaulted by the deceased and subsequently, they compromised the issues.

Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide and the petitioners are not cause for

the death of the deceased and they are no way connected with the case.

7.From the evidence and materials produced by the prosecution along

with the charge sheet, it is seen that there is prima facie materials against these https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.R.C.No.106 of 2021

petitioners to frame charge and to proceed with the trial. Therefore, the defence

taken by the petitioners are to be decided during trial and not at this stage.

8.In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity

or perversity in the order, dated 11.01.2021, in Crl.M.P.No.57 of 2020 in

S.C.No.61 of 2020 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Thiruvallur @ Poonamallee and the same is, hereby, confirmed. This Criminal

Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

23.02.2021

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

vv2

To

1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur @ Poonamallee.

2.The Inspector of Police, T2, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

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

Crl.R.C.No.106 of 2021

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

vv2

Crl.R.C.No.106 of 2021

23.02.2021

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