Valli vs The Superintendent Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 14806 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14806 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2023

Madras High Court

Valli vs The Superintendent Of Police on 24 November, 2023

                                                                                  Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21161 of 2023



                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                        DATED: 24.11.2023

                                                            CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21161 of 2023

                     Valli                                                             ... Petitioner

                                                                  Vs.

                     1.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Ramanathapuram District.

                     2.The Inspector of Police,
                       Nainar Kovil Police Station,
                       Ramanathapuram.

                     3.Balamurugan                                                     ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of

                     Cr.P.C, to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct the

                     investigation and to file the alteration report in FIR No.150 of 2023 on

                     the file of the 2nd respondent police station.

                                  For petitioner        : Mr.B.Mahendrarajan
                                  For Respondents       : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi for R1 & R2
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl. Side)




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/8
                                                                                 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21161 of 2023



                                                           ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the 2nd respondent

to conduct the investigation and to file the alteration report in FIR No.

150 of 2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent police station.

2.The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the accused. The accused

married the elder daughter of the petitioner and there is some dispute

between them. Hence, the petitioner's elder daughter left the matrimonial

home and was living with the petitioner. During this time, the accused

barged into the house of the petitioner, damaged the house and assaulted

the petitioner with a deadly weapon namely aruval. In the circumstances,

she made a complaint before the respondent police. The respondent

police registered the case under 'Sections 294(b), 324, 427 of IPC'. After

the registration of the case, the respondent police conducted the

investigation without adding the offence under 'Section 307 of IPC' and

'Section 3 of TNPPDL Act'. Hence, the petitioner made representation to

the Superintendent of Police on 20.10.2023. Though the same was

received by the Superintendent of Police, no action was taken sofar.

Hence, this petition has been filed seeking direction to conduct the

investigation and file the alteration report in FIR No.150 of 2023.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21161 of 2023

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

nature of injuries clearly made out the offence under 'Section 307 of IPC'

as per the Judgement passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the

case State of M.P. v. Harjeet Singh reported in 2019 (20) SCC 524.

Further the accused caused damages to the properties worth about

Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, in all fairness, the investigating agency, should

have included TNPPDL Act, as per the order of the Division Bench of

this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.869 of 2022, which was confirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Crl.No.11692 of 2023, observing that

TNPPDL Act is applicable to the private property also.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that

the injury is simple injury and the investigating agency included the

offences under Section 427 of IPC and there is no necessity to alter the

offence under Section 307 of IPC and the TNPPDL Act. The

investigation in this case has already been completed and final report also

was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, which has

not been taken on file.

5.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the

records and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21161 of 2023

2023 3 MLJ (Cri) 161 SC.

6. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State

through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Hemendhra Reddy and

Another reported in 2023 3 MLJ (Cri) 161 SC, it is not necessary to hear

the accused, while considering the application for further investigation.

7.Admittedly, the accused trespassed into the house of the

petitioner and damaged the entire house. Apart from that he caused

injuries with a deadly weapon on the head of the petitioner. In the said

circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the offence

under Section 307 of IPC is made out on the basis of the Judgment of

Honourable Supreme Court in the case State of M.P. v. Harjeet Singh,

(2019) 20 SCC 524 at page 530

5.6.1. If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307.

In State of M.P. v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605 at page 609

13. The above judgments of this Court lead us to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21161 of 2023

from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent. of 'Kotwar Vs. State of Jharka'.

8. Further, as per the order passed by the Honourable Division

Bench of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.869 of 2022 confirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Crl.No.11692 of 2023, TNPPDL Act is

applicable to the destruction of the private property also.

9. Hence, in the interest of justice, the investigating agency has to

conduct further investigation.

10. In view of the said circumstances, this Court hereby directs the

Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, to appoint Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, to conduct further investigation,

by incorporating the relevant offences and file the additional final report

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned