Murugesan vs The Inspector Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 15607 Mad

Madras High Court

Murugesan vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 December, 2023

Author: G.Ilangovan

Bench: G.Ilangovan

                                                                               Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12529 of 2023


                      BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 04.12.2023

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                           Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12529 of 2023
                                     and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.9808 and 9809 of 2023

                1. Murugesan

                2. Santhanakumar
                                                                                       ... Petitioners

                                                           Vs
                1. The Inspector of Police,
                District Crime Branch, Karur,
                Karur District.

                2. Elango
                                                                                    ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
                this Court to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet dated
                20.10.2022 filed in CC No.580/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II,
                Karur and quash the same.
                                        For Petitioner     : Mr. Nagarajan.V

                                        For Respondents : Mr. M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl.Side)




                1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12529 of 2023


                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to quash the case

in CC No.580 of 2022, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant

lodged a complaint stating that the property comprised in S.No.336, Athur

Village about 7.44 acres belongs to his father and sister. His father died in the

year 2004. After the death of his father, there was a partition between the

legal heirs and they were put into separate possession. In the meantime, one

Ramasamy is the father of Murugesan taking advantage on similarity in the

name of his grandfather viz., Ramasamy created encumbrance over the

property. In the year 2018, the accused Santhanakumar and others threatened

him to evict the property and told him that they bring the documents for

amicable settlement, but they did not come back. Later, they produced the

documents and verification was also made to declare the documents as

invalid. He filed a suit in O.S.No.210 of 2008, but the accused persons

objected the decree. It was referred to the mediators. Over the issue, the said

Santhanakumar threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.

He also demanded Rs.10 lakhs to remove the encumbrance in the property.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12529 of 2023

On the basis of the complaint, the case was registered in Cr.No.14 of 2020 on

the file of the first respondent seeking quashment, this petition has been filed

by the accused persons 1 and 2.

3.During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the second petitioner was minor on the date of

alleged occurrence and also produced the Transfer Certificate as well as

School Leaving Certificate of the second petitioner. On verification of the

same, the date of birth of the second petitioner was noted as 05.03.1984. The

date of occurrence took place on 08.09.1993. Apparently, the age of the

second petitioner is about 9 years. Hence, on the date of alleged occurrence,

he was a juvenile. Without verifying the age of the second petitioner,

investigation has been completed and final report was also filed by the first

respondent. From the prima facie of the case, it is seen that the provisions of

the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act is not properly

followed by the investigation officer. On this sole ground, the case against

the second petitioner is liable to be allowed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12529 of 2023

4.Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the first petitioner is ready to face the trial before the Court below.

5.In view of the above, this petition is dismissed in respect of the

first petitioner. However, considering the age of the first petitioner, the

personal appearance of the first petitioner alone is dispensed with and he shall

be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the

first petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of

copies, framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the

time of passing Judgment.

6.Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed in respect of the

second petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

04.12.2023

NCC:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No PNM

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12529 of 2023

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur, Karur 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.12529 of 2023

G.ILANGOVAN, J.

PNM

ORDER IN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12529 of 2023 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.9808 and 9809 of 2023

04.12.2023

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