Madras High Court
Govindan vs Sundaraajan on 4 October, 2021
Crl.OP.No.29507/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.OP.No.29507/2015&MP.Nos.1&2/2015
[Video Conferencing]
1.Govindan
2.Uma ... Petitioners
Versus
1.Sundaraajan
2.Station House Officer,
E-5, Arangandanallur Police Station,
Villupuram Village, District – 605752. ... Respondents
Prayer : - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in S.T.C.No.2303/2014, on the file of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur, and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Shakespeare
For R1 : Mr.A.P.Surya Prakasan
For R2 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.29507/2015
(1) The present petition has been filed taking advantage of Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/A1 and A2 in STC.No.2303/2014 pending
on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Tirukovilur, seeking
interference with the further progress of the said case.
(2) It had been stated that STC.No.2303/2014 had been taken cognizance
by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Tirukovilur, for offences
punishable u/s.294[B] IPC read with 506[i] IPC as against the 1st
petitioner/A1 and u/s.294[B] IPC alone as against the 2nd
petitioner/A2.
(3) The occurrence had happened on 05.01.2014 which led to both the
participating parties to lodge complaints against each other. On the
basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, CC.No.35/2014
had been taken cognizance by the very same Court/Judicial
Magistrate, Tirukovilur.
(4) Both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent had forwarded a
copy of the judgment therein dated 22.05.2018, whereby the accused
therein, have been acquitted of all charges. The 1st respondent herein
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.29507/2015
was the 1st accused therein. His wife was A2 and there was a yet
another accused/a lady. The learned Judge had stated that there was
no evidence adduced against the accused which indicate that the
present petitioners herein who are the defacto complainants, had not
come forward to speak about the occurrence which had taken place on
05.01.2014 in the same manner in which they had lodged the
complaint before the 2nd respondent police.
(5) It is clear that neither party are interested in proceeding further with
the complaint lodged by each one of them against the other.
(6) In view of all these facts, particularly because the possibility of
conviction is very remote, I hold that driving the parties to trial would
only be an act of oppression and they should be spared of such an
ordeal.
(7) Mr.A.P.Surya Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent is not present today. But, was present in the previous
hearing date and he had stated that he is also aware that
STC.No.35/2014 had ended in acquittal.
(8) Proceeding further with the trial would only be in the nature of
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.29507/2015
flogging a dead horse as there would be no realistic witnesses
speaking with respect to the allegations they had given in the
complaint before the 2nd respondent police.
(9) Taking all these factors into consideration, I hold that further progress
of STC.No.2303/2014 would only be an exercise in futility.
(10) In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the further
progress in STC.No.2303/2014 pending on the file of the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate, at Tirukovilur, is quashed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.10.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur.
2.The Station House Officer,
E-5, Arangandanallur Police Station,
Villupuram Village, District – 605752.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.29507/2015
Crl.OP.No.29507/2015
04.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
