Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Through on 18 October, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17098 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 18/10/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.17098 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.13561 and 13562 of 2023
1.N.Vaikarai (a) Sekar
2.V.Mahendran
3.A.Devadas
4.S.Jebastian
5.K.Shanmugam
6.K.Mugil Eniyan (a) K.Ramalingam
7.A.Bhagath Singh
8.S.Venkatachalam
9.Bhaskar @ Viduthalai Sudar
10.Ravi @ Cheliyan
11.K.Veeramani
12.M.G.Devarasan
13.P.Balu
14.C.Arokiasamy
15.J.Chinnadurai (a) Arokiasamy
16.R.Nagarasan
17.T.Bala Dhandayuthapani
18.K.Kamaraj
19.G.Marimuthu
20.P.Subramaniyan
21.S.Senthil Maran
22.P.Durairaj
23.C.Sebastin
24.T.Poosaimani
25.T.Jothi Basu
26.P.Thiyagalingam
27.R.Raju
28.Mu.Tha.Kavithuvan @ Krishnamurthy
29.R.Elango
30.G.Ramasamy
31.A.Ananthan
32.P.Sankar @ Sankara Vadivel
33.R.Kannan
34.P.Suresh (a) Saravanan
35.G.Rajesh Kumar
36.S.Venkatesh Kumar
37.Senthil Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17098 of 2023
38.R.Prabhu (a) Prabhakaran
39.M.Murugavel
40.T.Subramani
41.Sugan
42.A.Kuberan @ Guruparan
43.V.Subramania Siva
44.K.Masilamani
45.S.Arul Amudhan
46.L.Poochandran
47.T.Manikandan
48.G.Ramesh
49.T.Selvam
50,K.Chinnathambi
51.Aadhi Kaliya Perumal
52.R.Karunanidhi
53.P.Chinnadurai @ Chinnaswamy
54.N.Karuppusamy
55.K.Subramanian
56.L.Kumariyanandam
57.P.Ravichandran
58.S.Ravichandran
59.P.Dachana Murthy
60.S.Aruldas
61.P.Ramanujam @ Ramalingam
62.T.Ravi
63.M.Muruganandham
64.K.Arasu (a) Boomirajan
65.D.Ramesh Kumar
66.B.Selvaraj
67.N.Sundaramoorthi
68.A.Muniyayya
69.P.Veerakumar
70.G.Jeevanandham
71.T.Sathish @ Rajendran
72.R.Gopinath
73.A.Manikandan
74.K.Radha
75.C.Prakash
76.G.Murugan
77.M.Ramakrishnan
78.V.Chithirai Selvan
79.P.Elaiyaraja
80.R.Damodharan
81.O.Selvam
82.P.Malar Mannan
83.R.Tamilagan : Petitioners/Accused Persons
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17098 of 2023
1.The State through,
The Inspector of Police,
Thanjavur East Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.86 of 2011) : R1/Complainant
2.D.Sachidhanandham,
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Thanjavur South Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.86 of 2011) : R2/De-facto Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records connected with the Final Report in PRC
No.32 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-1,
Thanjavur and to quash the same as illegal and pass such
further or other orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed
seeking quashment of the case in PRC No.32 of 2017 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate-1, Thanjavur.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
On 09/03/2011 at about 11.00 am in front of the shop
called 'Francis Alukas Jewellery', the accused persons
numbering about 120 assembled unlawfully without proper
permission, raised slogans against the the people belongs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17098 of 2023
to Kerala State and demanding closure of the shop belongs
to Kerala people. And they also caused damage to the
advertisement banner worth about Rs.1,500/- put up in
front of the shop. On the basis of the occurrence, a case
in Crime No.86 of 2011 was registered for the offences
punishable under sections 147, 143, 188 IPC and section
3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages
and Loss) Act, 1992. After completing the investigation,
final report was filed and it was taken cognizance in PRC
No.16 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur
against A1 to A6. The case against A7 to A120 was split
up in PRC No.32 of 2017.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has
been filed by the petitioners on the ground that the
parent case in SC No.202 of 2017 was tried by the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and the
judgment of acquittal was passed, on 31/10/2019; So far
as these petitioners are concerned, the case has been
split up in PRC No.32 of 2017; The parent case in SC
No.202 of 2017 A1 to A6 similarly placed were tried; The
benefit of acquittal that was rendered to A1 to A6 may
also be extended to these petitioners.
4.Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17098 of 2023
5.It is a case of rioting causing damage to the
private property worth about Rs.1,500/-.
6.It is not denied that the above said
protest/demonstration/rioting took place, on 09/03/2011
at about 11.00 am in front of a shop called 'Fancis
Alukas Jewellery' situated near Old Bus Stand Thanjavur.
These petitioners belongs to a particular political
party. They were against the Kerala State people, since
Kerala people conducting business activities in Tamil
Nadu. The occurrence cannot be disputed by the
petitioners. But at the same time, since, similarly
placed accused has been acquitted, according to the
petitioners, unless the prosecution come forward with the
additional evidence to be let in this case, subjecting
them to the committal process and trial may not be
proper.
7.For that purpose, they would rely upon the
judgment of the trial court namely II Additional District
Judge, Thanjavur, passed in SC No.202 of 2017.
8.On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were
examined, 8 documents were marked, apart from 3 material
objects. PW1, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW10, who belongs to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17098 of 2023
Police Department gave evidence in favour of the
prosecution. Now the question before the trial court is
the identity of the accused, who participated in the
occurrence. The evidentiary value of PW1, PW7, PW8, PW9
and PW10 were discussed in detail and the trial court
found that no proper identification of the accused who
participated in the occurrence, was established. The
employees of the shop, even though cited as witnesses
were not examined. Similarly, the private witnesses
namely PW2 to PW6 did not support the case of the
prosecution and turned hostile. They also failed to
identify the accused persons, who participated in the
occurrence. The other witnesses are only official
witnesses. From them also, the prosecution has failed to
establish the guilt of the accused. Even though, the
occurrence could not be denied, as mentioned above, the
identity of the persons was not properly brought on
record.
9.Reading of the judgment may also be enured to the
benefit of the petitioners. Even during the course of
investigation, proper identity of the persons was not
taken. When the prosecution proposed to examine the very
same witness in this matter also, I find that no purpose
is going to be served by subjecting the petitioners to
the trial process once again.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17098 of 2023
10.Now the law is well settled on that point, I need
not extract the observation or decision in this regard.
On that account, this criminal original petition is
liable to be allowed.
11.In the result, this criminal original petition
stands allowed. The impugned final report in PRC No.32 of
2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Thanjavur, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
18/10/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thanjavur East Police Station,
Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17098 of 2023
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.OP(MD)No.17098 of 2023
18/10/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
