Madras High Court
Venkatachalam vs The State on 7 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.9746 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-08-2023
CORAM
HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL OP. 9746 of 2021
Venkatachalam ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State, represented by
Inspector of Police,
Voimedu Police Station,
Vedaranyam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
2. Rajendran Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the record relating to C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi
For Respondents : Mr.V.J. Priyadarsana, GA (crl.side)-R1
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records relating to
C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Vedaranyam and to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9746 of 2021
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
A2 in C.C.No.79 of 2019 on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Vedaranyam. He further submitted that originally the respondent
police registered a case against this petitioner along with two accused persons in
Cr.No.318 of 2001 for the offence under sections 294(b), 332, 506(ii) IPC.
After filing final report, the case has been taken on file of District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam in C.C.No.72 of 2008. Since this petitioner
/accused not appeared, the case against him has been split up and taken on file
as C.C.No.79 of 2017. Meanwhile, the case against other accused in
C.C.No.72 of 2008 ended in acquittal. The trial court, in its judgment in
paragraph 14 and 15 discussed that there is no prosecution evidence to support
its case. Hence acquitted the accused in that case. Under the circumstances,
the case against this petitioner will not serve any purpose. Thus he prayed that
the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.79 of 2017 may be
quashed.
3. The learned Govt. Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the case against
the other accused persons in C.C.No.72 of 2008 was ended in acquittal on
21.12.2018 on the ground that the prosecution failed to charge against the
accused and no prosecution witnesses support the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9746 of 2021
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
Govt. Advocate (crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.
5. On perusal of records, the fact reveals that the petitioner is A2 in
C.C.No.72 of 2008. The respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.318 of
2001, in pursuance of a complaint given by the complainant Rajendran. After
filing final report, the case has been taken on file in C.C.No.72 of 2008. Since
the accused/petitioner did not appear before the trial court, the case against him
has been split up and taken on file as C.C.No.79 of 2017. Pending C.C.No.79
of 2017, the parent case in C.C.No.72 of 2008 filed against other accused
persons ended in acquittal on 21.12.2018 on the ground that the prosecution
not proved its case and also prosecution witnessess did not support the case.
In the judgment passed in C.C.No.72 of 2008, in paragraphs 14 and 15, the
learned Judge has observed as follows;
' m/rh/1I vjphpfs; jug;gpy; FWf;F
tprhuiz bra;j nghJ *///// ehd; ntjhuz;ak;
fhty;epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;njd;/ m/rh/M/1
g[fhiu vd;Dld; gzpg[hpa[k; oiuth; vGjpdhh;/
nkw;go g[fhhpy; njjpa[k;. neuKk; jpUj;jk;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/////* vd;W
rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;sij ghprPypf;Fk; nghJ Vd;>
m/rh/1 uhn$e;jpud; vd;gtuhy; g[fhh;
vGjg;gltpy;iy vd;gJ Fwpj;Jk;. nkw;go g[fhhpy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9746 of 2021
vd;d> fhuzj;jpw;fhf rk;gt njjp kw;Wk; neuk;
jpUj;jk; bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;gJ Fwpj;Jk; muR
jug;gpy; ve;jbthU tpsf;fKk; Kd; itf;fg;
gltpy;iy/
15/nkYk;. M/rh/1d; rhl;rpaj;ij cWjpa{l;Lk;
tifapy; muR jug;gpy; rk;gtk; Fwpj;J
tprhhpf;fg;gl;l m/rh/2 ,e;jpu$pj; m/rh/3 Re;jh;.
M/rh/4 ,s';nfhtd; Mfpa ve;jbthU rhl;rpa[k;
rhl;rpak; mspf;ftpy;iy/ khwhf oiutiu
jhf;fpath;fs; ahbud;W vdf;F bjhpahJ vd;W
m/rh/1 cld; rk;gt rkaj;jpy; ngUe;jpy;
el;jJduhf gzpapypUe;j m/rh/2 ,e;jpu$pj;
vd;gtUk;. rk;gtk; gw;wp vJk; bjhpahJ vd;W
m/rh/3 kw;Wk; m/rh/4 Mfpa rhl;rpfSk; rhl;rpak;
mspj;Js;sij ghprPyid bra;a[k; nghJ. rk;gt
rkaj;jpy; ,t;tHf;fpd; vjphpfs; m/rh/1
uhn$e;jpud; vd;gtiu Mghrkhd thh;j;ijfshy;
ngrp. mtiu jhf;fpa[k;. mtuJ gzpia
bra;atplhky; jLj;jJs;shh;fs; vd;w
Fw;wr;rhl;Lfis epU:gzk; bra;a[k; tifapy;
nkw;goahh;fspd; rhl;rpak; mikatpy;iy vd;nw
,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUj;jpy; bfhs;fpwJ/
6. In view of the above observation of the trial court, pendency of the
case in C.C.No.79 of 2017 against the petitioner, which has been split up from
the parent case in C.C.No.72 of 2008, did not serve any purpose. Keeping the
case and records pertaining to C.C.No.79 of 2017 also will not serve any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9746 of 2021
purpose. Therefore, the case against the petitioner in C.C.No.79 of 2009 is
liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings initiated against the
petitioner in C.C.No.79 of 2009 pending on the file of learned District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam is hereby quashed and Criminal Original
Petition is allowed.
07-08-2023
msr
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9746 of 2021
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
msr
CRL OP. 9746 of 2021
07.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
