Madras High Court
Suresh vs The State Represented By on 22 October, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11055 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11055 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5653 of 2021
Suresh ... Petitioner/Accused No.6
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Karambakudi Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
(In Crime No.126 of 2004) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Raja ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First
Information Report in Crime No.126 of 2004 on the file of the 1st
respondent police station and quash the same as illegal as against the
petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanithi
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11055 of 2021
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of
FIR in Crime No.126 of 2004 on the file of the first respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution as narrated in the FIR is that the
defacto complainant was having previous enmity with one Selvaraj and
his family members. One Raj brought more than 20 persons to attack
him and petitioner is also one among the above said group and he
assaulted the defacto complainant. It is alleged that on 18.04.2004,
during the noon time, the defacto complainant and others were returning
to the village after watching Jallikattu programme. At that time when
they were nearing the house of Selvaraj around 20 people with deadly
weapons waiting for them and Selvaraj accused assaulted with aruval.
The other persons also joined with him and assaulted him with sticks and
deadly weapons. Totally 2 Suresh were in the group. Another Suresh
caused assault with spear, in which also several persons sustained
injuries. On hearing their noise, village people gathered and all the
accused persons escaped from the place of occurrence. Based upon the
complaint given by the defacto complainant a case in Crime No.126 of
2004 was registered and still it is kept pending without any progress.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11055 of 2021
3.Now the petitioner has been selected for the post of Sweeper in
Central Reserve Police Force and completed his basic training
programme also. But he was terminated from the service in view of the
pendency of the above said case. The termination was challenged before
this Court in W.P.(MD).No.3225 of 2009, which was allowed on
20.07.2018, against which, a writ appeal has also been filed and that was
also dismissed.
4.It is a case in counter case and as per the police standing order,
both the cases ought to have been investigated simultaneously and the
real aggressor ought to have been found out and if impossible in both the
cases final report ought to have been filed by the Investigating Officer.
But without following the above said process, the counter case has been
registered in Crime No.125 of 2004 and trial was also conducted in
S.C.No.100 of 2005 against the defacto complainant namely Raja S/o
Rengasamy and others and six persons were acquitted by the Judgment
dated 07.09.2007 by the learned Additional District and Session Judge,
Pudukottai. It is a case of murder. In the final report in the above said
counter case, it has been stated that the defacto complainant party
attacked this petitioners and others and in the course of the above said
assault one Sankar @ Saminathan was killed. So the defacto complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11055 of 2021
parties were charged under Sections 147, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and in that
counter case, it has been mentioned that this petitioner also sustained
injuries. In the case of the trial, it appears that all the persons namely not
only the injured, but also eye witnesses turned hostile. So finding that
there is no material to record the conviction upon the defacto
complainant parties, they were acquitted.
5.It has also been observed that P.W.1 by name Karthik is also an
accused and injured in this case also. He has also stated in the complaint
that the defacto complainant's party assaulted them with deadly weapons,
for which also he has filed a complaint. Against the above said averment
in the complaint, he gave evidence before the Court and turned hostile.
So this counter case also been referred in the above said judgment. So as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since it is a
clear case of case in counter as mentioned above, the Investigating
Officer ought to have investigated both the matters simultaneously and
would have acted upon that. But without following the proper procedure,
it appears that in the counter case, final report has been filed even
without mention or finding who were the real aggressors, are.
6.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it is a clear
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11055 of 2021
violation of PSO 588 A. Reading of the final report in the above said
counter case does not show that the accused person in that case were real
aggressors. So keeping the counter case pending without further progress
for more than 15 years is clear violation of law. Not only the speedy trial,
but also the speedy investigation is the fundamental right, which has
been well recognized. So on that ground, this petition is liable to
allowed.
7.Factually also as mentioned earlier, when the counter case has
been ended in acquittal, filing of the final report will show that only
those accused persons were the real aggressors. So continuation of the
proceedings in FIR will amount to clear abuse of the process of law and
Court.
8.So this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings
of the FIR in Crime No.126 of 2004 on the file of the first respondent
police is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
22.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11055 of 2021
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
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Karambakudi Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11055 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
TM
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11055 of 2021
22.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
