Madras High Court
Raja @ Rocket Raja vs The State Rep. By on 5 March, 2024
CRL OP(MD). No.6319 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 05.03.2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M. DHANDAPANI
CRL OP(MD) No.6319 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD).No.4366 of 2022
Raja @ Rocket Raja ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Surandai Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.61/2009
2.Antony Savarimuthu ... Respondents
PRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the proceedings in
P.R.C.No.9/2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Alankulam, Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
Senior Counsel for
Mr.K.Prabhu
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
No-appearance for R2
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6319 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in P.R.C.No.9/2016 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Alankulam, Tirunelveli, against the petitioner herein.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.2009, at about
06.00 p.m., the second respondent and the Police Officials intercepted the
vehicle bearing TN 58 B 5440 driven by the first accused. In order to
escape from the scene of occurrence, the first accused threw a country
bomb on the second respondent, in which, the police officials got
injured. The respondent Police recovered country bomb, aruval and
weapons from the co-accused. Hence, the respondent Police registered a
case in Crime No.61 of 2009 and after completion of investigation, the
charge sheet has been filed in P.R.C.No.9 of 2016 for the offence
punishable under Sections 294(b), 353, 307 and 323 IPC and Sections 3
and 5 of I.E.S Act @ Sections 307, 353, 120(b) IPC and Sections 3(a)
and 4(b) of I.E.S Act and Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that earlier though 17 cases were pending against the petitioner, 13 cases
were ended in acquittal and only four cases are pending in different part
of the State and all those cases are foisted against the petitioner as the
petitioner is a community leader and he did not commit any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel would further submit
that in the First information Report, initially the name of the petitioner
was not found place and only based on the confession statement of the
co-accused, he was falsely implicated and no recovery was made from
the petitioner and he was not at all available in the scene of occurrence.
The learned Senior counsel further submits that merely because of the
pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner, the claim made by the
petitioner cannot be rejected and when there are no any
materials/substance against the petitioner, the ordeal of facing trial is
liable to be quashed.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent Police would submit that the petitioner is a notorious person
in the locality and 17 previous cases are pending against the petitioner all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
over the State. Though 13 cases were ended in acquittal, it does not mean
that the petitioner will not be included/prosecuted and most of the
offences are heinous in nature and the accused persons joined together
and threw country bomb on the Police Officials and weapons were also
recovered from the residence of the petitioner and thereby, the case has
been rightly registered against the petitioner and hence, no interference is
warranted. He would further submit that there are materials available as
against the petitioner and the offences against the petitioner are triable
before the Court below.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is arrayed as A5 in this case. Though
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner claims that the
name of the petitioner was not found place in the First Information
Report initially and based on the confession statement of the co-accused,
he was falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is not available in
the scene of occurrence and there was no recovery from the petitioner,
whereas, the respondents Police claim that weapons were recovered from
the petitioner and based on the confession statement of the co-accused,
he was implicated in this case. It is trite that though 17 previous cases
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
were pending against the petitioner, in which, 13 cases were ended in
acquittal and four previous cases are still pending against the petitioner,
the Court has to consider whether prima facie materials are available to
proceed against the accused persons. In this case, there is a specific
allegation against the petitioner that weapons were recovered from the
petitioner.
6. 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 subjected to due trial as
sufficient opportunity would be given to the petitioner 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 made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426)
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground or
scope to quash P.R.C.No.9 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judicial Magistrate, Alankulam, Tirunelveli District. Accordingly, this
Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that this Court may consider to dispense with the personal appearance of
the petitioner before the court below.
9. Taking into consideration the request as made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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. 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. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.03.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
ssb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Alankulam, Tirunelveli District
2.The Inspector of Police,
Surandai Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI. J
ssb
ORDER
IN
Date : 05.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
