Madras High Court
Muralikrishnan vs The State Represented By on 29 July, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2019
Muralikrishnan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
K-9, Thiru.Vi.Ka Nagar Police Station,
Chennai – 600 011. ...Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with Section
401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated
03.07.2019 in M.P.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Executive Magistrate and
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Puliyanthope District, in RC
No.131/SEC.PRO/DCP(P)2019 on the file of the Executive Magistrate and
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Puliyanthope District in C.No.21/Inspr.K9
PS/Sec.Pro.2019 u/s 107 Cr.P.C. on the file of the respondent by convicting
the petitioner for the offence under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo 280 days of imprisonment and set aside the same.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohamed Ansar
Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran,
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
*******
ORDER
The petitioner alleged to have involved in a case in Cr.No.752 of
2013 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 307 and
302 of IPC and during investigation, the petitioner was asked to execute a
bond and accordingly, the petitioner executed a bond under Section 110 of
Cr.P.C to keep good conduct. Subsequently, when the police officials went
to arrest the petitioner in Crime No.115 of 2019 on 16.06.2019, as per the
order, the petitioner assaulted the police officials and he was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody and further the ground case in Crime No.660
of 2019 was also registered for the offence under Sections294(b), 324, 353
and 307 of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the
Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Puliyanthope
District, on P.T. Warrant. The petitioner engaged a counsel and cross
examined the witnesses and the Executive Magistrate, after hearing both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2019
parties, since, during the bond period, has committed the offence in Crime
No.660 of 2019 violating the undertaking given in the bond. Hence the
Executive Magistrate passed the order imposing sentence to undergo the
remaining period of undertaking given in the bond executed by him, which
is impugned in the present revision case.
2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would
submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the
respondent police and the complainant in the ground case is a police official
and hence false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Further, without
giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the order was passed sentencing the
petitioner to undergo remaining period period of undertaking given in the
bond. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3 Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner has
involved in a murder case and during the bond period, when the police
officials went to discharge their duty, the petitioner/accused prevented them
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2019
and also assaulted with deadly weapons. Hence, the Executive Magistrate
has rightly passed the order, which does not call for any interference of this
Court.
4 Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
5 It is seen that the petitioner previously involved in Crime
Nos.752 of 2013 and 115 of 2019 and he was also directed to execute a
bond for keeping good conduct and accordingly, he also executed a bond on
01.04.2019. Subsequently, on 16.06.2019, when the police officials went to
arrest the petitioner in connection with the Crime No.115 of 2019 as per the
order, the petitioner assaulted the police officials and thereby committed
offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 353 and 307 IPC and hence the ground
case was registered against him. Further, on a perusal fo the impugned
order, it is seen that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities and he
also engaged counsel and the counsel cross examined the witnesses.
Thereafter only, being satisfied with reports filed by the respondent police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2019
The Executive Magistrate passed the order. Hence this Court finds that the
petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
6 This Court is of the view that after following all the procedures
only the first respondent has passed the order, since during the period of
undertaking, he involved in other case. Further, the petitioner also engaged
a counsel and sufficient opportunities have been extended to the petitioner.
Therefore this Court, does not find any reason to set aside the order of the
Executive Magistrate.
7 Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed.
29.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
cgi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2019
To
1. The Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Puliyanthope District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Law and Order,
K-9, Thiru.Vi.Ka Nagar Police Station,
Chennai – 600 011.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2019
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
