Madras High Court
S.Subash vs The State Rep By on 23 September, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9589 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 23.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9589 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4904 & 4905 of 2021
1.S.Subash ... Petitioners/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.638 of 2016) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Manoharan ... 2nd Respondents/Defacto Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records and quash the proceedings of the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.
255 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Karuppasamy Pandian
for Mr.Tamil Amuthan
For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9589 of 2021
For R2 : Mr.A.Jeyaramachandran
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings of
the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.255 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The defacto complainant namely, Manoharan and the petitioner, who
is the accused are close relatives. In respect of the property dispute, enmity
exist between them. On 01.12.2016, at about 10.30 a.m, when the defacto
complainant was standing in front of his house, the accused herein came to
the place and criminally intimidated him by causing assault on the lower
jaw region of the defacto complainant and also the right ear region. So, the
petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 323 and
506 (i) IPC. Based upon the complaint given by the second respondent
herein, investigation has been undertaken. Materials were collected and
after completing the investigation, final report was filed before the learned
Judicial Magistrate-VI, Madurai, which has been taken on file in
C.C.No.255 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9589 of 2021
3. Seeking quashment of the same, this petition came to be filed
mainly on the ground that the date of the occurrence is said to be taken
place on 01.12.2016. But, whereas, the final report has been filed before the
concerned Court only on 24.03.2021. So, the offence punishable under
Sections 323 and 506 (i) IPC are punishable below 3 years. So, the
cognizance taken by the Trial Court is barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
4. Even though, the second respondent is appeared through counsel,
the legal issue that has been raised by the petitioner was not properly
replied. There is no evidence on record to show that the first respondent
herein before filing the final report before the concerned Court file an
application under Section 473 Cr.P.C, seeking extension of time to file final
report. So, in the absence of any such steps on the part of the first
respondent, barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C, cannot be saved.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Mrs.Sarah Methew
Vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9589 of 2021
Dr.K.M.Cherian & Others in Crl.A.No.829 of 2005. Wherein, the
question which arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is whether for the
purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C, the
relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution
of prosecution or the date of cognizance of the offence. So, after going
through the entire provision of law as well as proceedings, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that the relevant date of the
limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C is the date, which it has been presented
before the concerned Court and not the date, which has been taken
cognizance.
6. So, in the light of the above said discussion, as mentioned earlier, it
has been presented before the concerned Court, only on 24 th March 2021.
Even though, it has been prepared on 02.07.2017, it was not presented
before the concerned Court within the above said time, is clearly barred by
limitation and so, the cognizance taken by the Trial Court is illegal and the
entire prosecution is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9589 of 2021
7. Accordingly, the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.255 of 2021 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, is hereby, quashed and
the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.09.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
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 Judicial Magistrate No.VI,
Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station,
Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9589 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9589 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4904 & 4905 of 2021
23.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
