Madras High Court
G.Sugumaran @ Sukumaran vs State Rep. By on 19 April, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2206 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2206 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1621 of 2022
G.Sugumaran @ Sukumaran ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Thattarmadam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(In Cr.No.72 of 2019) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Paulkumar ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to the case registered in First Information Report in
Crime No.72 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in
Cr.No.72 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2206 of 2022
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.04.2019 when the defacto
complainant inspected Puthantharuvai Kulam, on receipt of the information that
the tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN-74-AL-6201 without having any
prior permission transported soil was captured by the revenue officials and
hence, the said vehicle was handed over to the first respondent.
3.On perusal of FIR revealed that even according to the prosecution the
petitioner's lorry was standing in Puthantharuvai Kulam to take the sand from
the land comprised in S.No.197/1, Puthantharuvai Village, Sathankulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. Further allegation is that the owner of the lorry
attempted to commit an offence of theft of sand. That apart, the petitioner is the
owner of the lorry and he is running a Brick Kiln manufacturing unit, in his
own patta land.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the
respondent police submitted that investigation completed and final report has
also been filed and the same was not yet taken on file.
4.On perusal of records revealed that the place of occurrence situated in
S.No.197/1, Puthantharuvai Village, Sathankulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
The statement of Village Administrative Officer recorded under Section 161(3)
of Cr.P.C. revealed that tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN-74-AL-6201
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2206 of 2022
was standing in the Puthantharuvai Kulam and after seeing him, the persons
inside the lorry ran away from the place of occurrence, however, no one has
spoken about the presence of the petitioner, who being the owner of the lorry
and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner only drove the lorry and ran
away from the lorry after seeing the officials.
5.That apart, even according to the prosecution, they attempt to commit
offence of theft of sand. It is relevant to extract of Section 378 of IPC is as
follows:-
''Section 378 – Theft – Whoever, intending to
take dishonestly any movable property out of the
possession of any person without that person's
consent, moves that property in order to such taking,
is said to commit theft.''
6.In the case on hand, the accused attempted to commit offence. In this
regard, he relied upon the judgment reported in (2019) 20 SCC 272, in the case
of Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand in paragraph No.9 as follows:-
''9.the attempt to commit an offence begins when the
accused commences to do an act with the necessary
intention..............''.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2206 of 2022
7.In the case on hand, after seeing the officials, the person, who was
driving the lorry flew away from the scene of occurrence. There is no
allegation that the accused while taking sand, after seeing the officials, ran
away from the scene of occurrence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
reported AIR 2021 SC 5242 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Mahendra in paragraph No.12 held as follows:-
''12.There is a visible distinction between
'preparation' and 'attempt' to commit an offence
and it all depends on the statutory edict coupled
with the nature of evidence produced in a case.
The stage of 'preparation' consists of deliberation,
devising or arranging the means or measures,
which would be necessary for the commission of
the offence. Whereas, an 'attempt' to commit the
offence, starts immediately after the completion of
preparation. 'Attempt' is the execution of mens rea
after preparation. 'Attempt' starts where
'preparation' comes to end, though it fails short of
actual commission of the crime.''
8.The above case squarely applicable to the case on hand, since the crux
of the complaint itself is after seeing the officials, the persons who were in the
lorry flew away from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, no offence is made
out as against the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned FIR in Cr.No.
72 of 2019 and its consequential proceedings, if any are liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2206 of 2022
9.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in
Cr.No.72 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
vsd
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Thattarmadam Police Station,
Kanyakumari 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.2206 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vsd
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2206 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1621 of 2022
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
