Madras High Court
Sumesh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 March, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10396 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10396 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.6498 and 6499 of 2022
Sumesh ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
Tiruvattar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District
Crime No.141/2019
2.Shajin ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the criminal case in STC No.937
of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.II,Padmanabhapuram and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.V.Sukumar
For R-1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
No appearance for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10396 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in STC No.
937 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.II,Padmanabhapuram.
2. The case of the prosecution is that it is a case and counter and
due to previous enmity, the cases have been registered against both sides.
The complaint given by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent herein
has been registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet has
been filed and trial is in progress. However, the complaint given by the
2nd respondent against the petitioner was registered in Crime No.
141/2019 and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in
STC No.937/2019 before the trial court under Sections 294(b), 323 and
341 IPC, for quashing which, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is no way connected with the offence as alleged by the
prosecution. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner only
sustained injuries in the alleged incident and on the complaint given by
the petitioner, a case has been registered and the same is riped for trial,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10396 of 2022
while so, in order to wreck vengeance, the petitioner was implicated in
the alleged offenec and hence, prays for allowing the petition.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that
there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the
petitioners herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot
be quashed and the charges against the petitioners have to be gone into
only at the time of trial and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. This Court gave its anxious considerations to the rival
submissions and perused the materials available on record.
6. When there are case and counter, necessarily, the respondent
police have to follow the provisions under Order 566 of the Police
Standing Orders. In the present case, as per the said order only, the case
was registered and chargesheet has been filed. Since wound certificate is
available, the necessary ingredients are satisfied and hence, the points
raised here cannot be canvassed before this court and it has to be
canvassed before the trial Court. In the above circumstances, the trial
court has rightly taken the case on file and this Court is of the considered
view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if he is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10396 of 2022
subjected to due trial as sufficient opportunity would be given to him to
put forth his defence. The petitioner cannot be let by quashing the
charges framed against him as that would completely undermine the
alleged act, which is the subject matter of criminal trial pending against
him. Useful reference in this regard can be had to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC
(Crl.) 426).
6. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground or scope to
quash STC No.937 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.II,Padmanabhapuram. Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of
merits, is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are dismissed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
this Court may consider dispensing with the personal appearance of the
petitioner before the court below. Taking into consideration the request
as made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the appearance of the
petitioner before the trial court is dispensed with except for his
appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s
207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10396 of 2022
and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for
any particular reason, the presence of the petitioner is necessary, the trial
court, at its wisdom, shall direct his appearance on those days.
01.03.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
RR
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,Padmanabhapuram
2.The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvattar Police Station,
Kanyakumari 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.10396 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI. J.
RR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10396 of 2022
01.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
