Madras High Court
Rose Merlin vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 April, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 29/04/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.19231 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.11286 and 11287 of 2019
Rose Merlin : Petitioner/5th Accused
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Asaripallam Police Station,
Kannyakumari District,
(Crime No.321 of 2014)
2.Vargeesh : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records relating to the case in CC No.25 of 2015
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
For 1st Respondent : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For 2nd Respondent : Died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
O R D E R
The petition has been filed seeking quashment of the
case in CC No.25 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating
that he is the owner of the Lorry bearing registration
No.TN-74-M-2135. In that lorry, one Arul Gnanadasaiya @
Rajan was working as driver. The lorry was parked in
front of his house by the above said driver and the key
was handed over to him. On 14/09/2014 at about 6.00 am,
the lorry was found missing. Based upon the complaint
given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.321
of 2014 was registered for the offence under section 379
IPC. After completing the formalities of investigation,
final report was filed and it was taken cognizance in CC
25 of 2015 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has
been filed by the petitioner/A5 stating that since she
happened to be the wife of the first accused, a case has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been falsely foisted upon her. On 04.11.2014, the police
people trespassed into the house, caused assault,
harassed, illegally detained and misbehaved with her.
Over the occurrence, a case in Crime No.492 of 2015 was
registered against the police officials for the offences
under sections 147, 363, 342, 506(ii), 454 and 380 IPC.
To wreck vengeance only, this case has been filed solely
on the alleged confession statement of the co-accused.
4.Heard both sides.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would straightaway rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Khanna Vs.
Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence
[(2018)3 SCC (Cri) 567] for the purpose of argument that
the confession statement of the co-accused alone cannot
be a matter for recording the conviction. The idea
behind the argument is that except the confession
statement of the husband of this petitioner, no other
material or ground is available or collected during the
course of investigation by the police to rope this
petitioner also into the offence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.The entire CD file has been called for and
perused. From the perusal of the entire CD file, the
husband of the petitioner is involved in some theft and
robbery cases and during the course of his confession
statement, he has stated that this petitioner also
instigated him to commit the offence of theft and robbery
and in fact, she also accompanied him, at one stage for
committing theft of the vehicle, which is involved in
this matter.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would further submit that the petitioner is working as a
teacher and she is noway involved in the alleged crime,
that has been committed by her husband and the police, at
one point of time, trespassed into her house, damaged the
articles and also criminally intimidated her, for which
also, a case has been registered against the police
officials as stated. According to the petitioner, to
wreck vengeance, a false confession statement has been
created implicating this petitioner also into the
occurrence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone in
detail about the evidentiary value of the confession
statement of the co-accused. It is time and again held
that unless the confession statement of the co-accused is
corroborated in material particulars, no conviction can
be recorded. But at the same time, it must also been
seen that these things cannot be taken into account,
while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
9.The defence of the petitioner may be true
considering her position in the society. But that alone
cannot be a deciding factor. It requires proper evidence
and trial. So the evidentiary value of the co-accused
and the documents and the materials collected during the
course of investigation cannot be a matter consideration
now as to its reliability or evidentially value. I am
of the considered view that the this is not a fittest
case to quash the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner and it requires thorough investigation and the
trial process has to be undertaken to its logical
conclusion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.In the result, this criminal original petition is
dismissed. However considering the fact that the
petitioner is working as a teacher, her personal
appearance is dispensed with. Within 15 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner
must appear before the trial court and file an
undertaking affidavit that she will appear as and when
required by the court and she must ensure that she is
properly represented by an Advocate. Further, it is a
case of the year 2015, the trial court is directed to
expedite the trial process and complete the same within a
period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
29/04/2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Asaripallam Police Station,
Kannyakumari District,
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
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.
Crl.OP(MD)No.19231 of 2019
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
