Raja @ Rocketraja @ ... vs The State Rep. By
2023 Latest Caselaw 4610 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4610 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2023

Madras High Court

Raja @ Rocketraja @ ... vs The State Rep. By on 21 April, 2023

                                                             1

                                   BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     Dated: 21/04/2023

                                                          CORAM:

                                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                             Crl.OP(MD)No.19684 of 2022
                                                         and
                                        Crl.MP(MD)No.13520 and 13521 of 2022

                     Raja @ Rocketraja @ Arumugapandian
                       @ Vivekanandan                : Petitioner/A7


                                                            Vs.

                     1.The State rep. by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Thalaiyuthu Police Station,
                       Tirunelveli District.
                       (Crime No.161 of 2018)      : R1/Complainant

                     2.Chinnapan                                 : R2/De-facto Complainant

                                  Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
                     under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
                     for the records in PRC No.289 of 2022 on the file of the
                     Judicial           Magistrate    No.III,     Tirunelveli     district   and
                     quash the same as against the petitioner.


                                  For Petitioner            :     Mr.V.Kathirvelu
                                                                  Senior Counsel
                                                                  for Mr.K.Prabhu

                                  For   1st Respondent      : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
                                                            Additional Public Prosecutor

                                  For 2nd Respondent        :     No appearance




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                2

                                                              O R D E R

This criminal original petition is filed seeking

quashment of the case in PRC No.289 of 2022 on the file

of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The de-facto complainant namely the conductor

belongs to the Tamil Nadu Government Transport

Corporation was on duty in the bus bearing registration

No.TN-72-N-1822, which are plying between the Tirunelveli

Junction and Thalaiuthu. On 15/05/2018 at about 11.25 am,

the bus started from the Junction and the driver was one

Parameswaran. At about 11.50 am, near Thalaiyuthu bus

stop, two identified persons came towards the bus having

a large knife and petrol bottle. They criminally

intimidated them to stop the vehicle. Fearing their life,

they got down from the bus. They poured petrol and fire

the bus, causing complete damage. Over the above said

occurrence, a case in Crime No.161 of 2018 was registered

for the offences punishable under sections 294(b),

506(ii), 353 IPC r/w 4 of TNPPDL Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3.After completing the formalities of investigation,

final report was filed and during the course of

investigation, it was found that only at the instance,

instigation of this petitioner, the above said offence

has been committed by the co-accused. Charging this

petitioner, who is arrayed as A7, final report was filed

under sections 294(b), 506(ii), 353 IPC r/w 4 of TNPPDL

Act and section 109 IPC. Now the committal process is

underway.

4.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has

been filed by the petitioner on the ground that when the

alleged occurrence said to have taken place, he was in

prison; Absolutely, there was no material to show that

only at his abetment and instigation, the above said

occurrence was committed.

5.Heard both sides.

6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that except the alleged

confession statement of one of the co-accused, absolutely

no material has been collected or available to implicate

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

this petitioner into the offence under section 109 IPC.

He would further submit that absolutely, there is no

possibility for any one to meet this petitioner when he

was escorted to the court on a particular day; in the

absence of any such materials, prosecution itself is not

legal. For that, he would rely upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parveen @ Sonu Vs.

State of Haryana (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184).

7.Per contra, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor would submit that only at his instance and

instigation, abetment, the above said offence said to

have been committed. So according to him, since the

investigation has been completed and final report has

been filed, the trial must be taken in its logical

conclusion.

8.No doubt the petitioner was in prison in some

other case, when the above said occurrence took place.

Now the prosecution says that the above said fire of the

Government vehicle took place demanding the release of

this petitioner from the prison.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9.According to the prosecution, absolutely, there is

no possibility for the above said occurrence to be taken

place without the abetment of this petitioner.

10.Section 107 IPC reads as under:-

"107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First— Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

11.Whether any meeting of mind between the

petitioner and the co-accused is to be decided only

during the course of trial. For abetment or conspiracy,

no direct evidence can be anticipated or possible. So

that can be proved by the prosecution before the trial

court by leading oral evidence or circumstantial evidence

as the case may be.

12.Perusal of the CD file further shows that in the

place of occurrence, some pamphlets were found demanding