Madras High Court
S.Sheik Shabee vs )State Through on 1 September, 2021
CRL.OP(MD)No.15314 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRL.OP(MD)No.15314 of 2018
and
CRL.MP(MD)Nos.6780 and 6781 of 2018
S.Sheik shabee ... Petitioner
vs.
1)State through
The Inspector of Police,
S.S.Colony Police Station,
S.S.Colony,
Madurai.
(in Crime No.454/2017)
2)R.Vanchinathan ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in S.C.No.454/2017
on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and quash
the same in respect of petitioner/Accused No.2 herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Krishnan
For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi, Standing Counsel for State
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the
proceedings in S.C.No.454/2017, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Madurai, and quash the same in respect of petitioner/Accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.OP(MD)No.15314 of 2018
No.2 herein.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.09.2016, at about 03.45
p.m., while the defacto complainant was on duty as Salesman at
TASMAC Shop No.5172, T.B. Road, Mehboopalayam, Madurai, the
accused persons approached him and asked for 2 beer bottles. When the
defacto complainant asked the accused to pay the money, they abused
him in filthy language and A1 attempted to attack him on his head, but
the defacto complainant moved and escaped and when he raised alarm,
the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. On the complaint of
the defacto complainant, FIR has been registered in Crime No.1031 of
2016. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Sections
294(b), 353, 307 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC in PRC.No.6/2017. After
committal proceedings, the charge sheet has been taken on file in
S.C.No.454/2017 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
Seeking to quash the above criminal proceedings, the petitioner/A2 has
filed this petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.OP(MD)No.15314 of 2018
specific allegation in the FIR and 161(3) statements that the
petitioner/A2 abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and even
if those materials are accepted as true, it does not constitute the offences
under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC, against the
petitioner. He would further state that while the occurrence is said to
have taken place at about 03.45 p.m., the FIR has been lodged only at
09.00 p.m and there is no specific overtact against the petitioner. Thus
he would pray for quashing the criminal proceedings as against the
petitioner.
4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on
instructions, would state that the petitioner is an absconding accused and
therefore, the case was split up against him and trial has commenced and
the evidence has also been recorded. He would further state there is a
specific overtact against the petitioner and therefore, the interference of
this Court is not necessary.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1st
respondent. There is no appearance by the 2nd respondent either by
himself or through counsel.
6.While invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.OP(MD)No.15314 of 2018
a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry
into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see
is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the
basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of.
The Court has also to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for
taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the
allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety,
would not constitute the offence alleged, which has been echoed in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.
1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi vs. K.R.Meenakshi and
another.
7.Here in the present case, the complainant had made specific
allegations against the petitioner in the complaint stating that when he
was on duty in the TASMAC shop, the accused persons came to buy 2
beer bottles and when the defacto complainant asked money, they
abused him in filthy language and the first accused attempted to attack on
his head and since the petitioner is an absconding accused, the case has
been split up against the petitioner. Trial has commenced in respect of
other accused persons and evidence has also been recorded and therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.OP(MD)No.15314 of 2018
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in S.C.No.
454/2017, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 01.09.2021
Internet : Yes / No
bala/akv
To
The Inspector of Police,
S.S.Colony Police Station,
S.S.Colony,
Madurai.
(in Crime No.454/2017)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.OP(MD)No.15314 of 2018
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
CRL.OP(MD)No.15314 of 2018
DATED : 01.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
