Madras High Court
Nagamani vs State Rep. By on 19 October, 2024
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.872 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 12.09.2024
Pronounced on : 19.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.872 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9631 and 9632 of 2024
Nagamani ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by,
Inspector of Police,
S.S. Colony Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime No.485 of 2016) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 and 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records of the impugned judgment passed by the V
Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.1287 of
2024 in S.C.No.28 of 2023 dated 12.08.2024 and set aside the same by
allowing the revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Manoharan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.872 of 2024
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed
in Cr.M.P.No.1287 of 2024 in S.C.No.28 of 2023 dated 12.08.2024 on the
file of the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, dismissing
the application filed for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioner, who is the second accused, is facing a case in
S.C.No.28 of 2023 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 448,
307, 506(2), 337 r/w 109 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public
Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Manikandan, FIR
came to be registered in Crime No.485 of 2016 on the file of the
respondent police and after completing the investigation, the respondent
police has laid the final report before the jurisdictional Court and after
committal, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.28 of 2023 and the same
was made over to the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai.
When the case was pending for framing of charges, the petitioner/second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused has filed the above application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to
discharge her from the above case.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2016, all the accused
including the petitioner herein came to the Gowri Krishna Hotel situated at
bypass road Madurai and calling the defacto complainant outside, abused
in filthy language and pelted stones at the hotel and that thereafter at the
instigation of the accused 2 and 3, the first accused had driven the car into
the hotel and caused damages to the hotel to the tune of Rs.18,95,171/-.
5. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is absolutely
innocent and the entire case was pinned against the petitioner based on the
presumption and assumption, that there is no prima facie case as against
the petitioner for the alleged offence under TNPPDL Act and other alleged
offences, that the petitioner will disprove the prosecution case through
unimpeachable documentary evidence at the time of trial, that the
respondent police has fabricated the case with magical words but not by
evidence, that the prosecution has not mentioned any particular obscene
word alleged to have been used by the accused in the charge sheet, that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case of the prosecution is very vague and the materials available on record
cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, that there are no
traces for attributing annoyance to others by the petitioner as there were no
particular words uttered as alleged, that there are absolutely no materials
available on record to make out a prima facie case as against the petitioner
and other accused and that therefore the petitioner was constrained to file
the above application seeking discharge from the above case. The
respondent police has raised their objections. The learned Sessions Judge,
after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 dismissing
the application. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the discharge application,
the present revision came to be filed.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the wife and the third
accused is the mother of the first accused. It is also not in dispute that the
third accused has earlier filed a similar application under Section 227
Cr.P.C. in Cr.M.P.No.159 of 2024 to discharge her from the above case and
the said application came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court on
12.02.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. It is pertinent to note that this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15128 of
2023 has passed an order dated 29.08.2023 directing the trial Court to
complete the trial and dispose of the case within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order.
8. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side), there are materials available to show that the petitioner
and the third accused were very much available at the occurrence place
and they were also involved in the commission of offence along with the
first accused.
9. Though the petitioner has not impleaded the defacto complainant,
Mr.Pandidurai, learned counsel representing for the defacto complainant
would submit that the defacto complainant and another witness have given
statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. specifically stating that the
petitioner was very much available at the occurrence place and he has
produced the photographs to show that all the three accused were present
in front of the hotel on 23.04.2016 and also to show the way in which the
occurrence of dashing the car into the hotel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. It is pertinent to note that in the application filed under Section
227 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has mainly averred with regard to the offence
under Section 294(b) IPC that the materials available on record would not
attract the said offence. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the
charge sheet and other materials filed along with the charge sheet and by
observing that there are materials to frame charges against the petitioner
and that there is absolutely no scope for discharging the petitioner at this
point of time, dismissed the application.
11. Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State by the Inspector of
Police, Chennai Vs. S.Selvi and another reported in (2018) 13 SCC 455.
“7. It is well settled by this Court in catena of
judgments including the cases of Union of India v. Prafulla
Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4, Dilawar Balu Kurane v.
State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135, Sajjan Kumar v.
CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368, State v. A.Arun Kumar (2015) 2
SCC 417, Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta (2015) 3 SCC 424,
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2003) 2 SCC 711,
Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj
Bijjayya (1990) 4 SCC 76 and Superintendent &
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bangal v. Anil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 that the Judge while
considering the question of framing charge under Section
227 of the Code in sessions cases (which is akin to Section
239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out; where the material
placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against
the accused which has not been properly explained, the
court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and
large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him while
giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his rights to
discharge the accused. The Judge cannot act merely as a
post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect
of the statements and the documents produced before the
court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
on. This however does not mean that the Judge should
make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the mater
and weigh the materials as if he was conducting a trial”
12. It is settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has
to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
against the accused and the Court is not required to appreciate evidence to
conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for
convicting the accused.
13. It is also settled law that while considering an application
seeking discharge from a case, the Court is not expected to go deep of the
probative value of the material on record, but on the other hand, the Court
has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged, and for that purpose, the
Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if it is a main trial.
14. It is pertinent to note that the Courts while dealing with the
application for discharge, are required only to see whether a prima facie is
made out against the accused and detailed enquiry is not required at this
stage. Bearing the above legal position in mind, let us consider the case on
hand.
15. As already pointed out, in the present case, there are materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
available to proceed against the petitioner and that there existed prima
facie materials to frame the charges against the petitioner.
16. Considering the above, the impugned order dismissing the
discharge application cannot be found fault with. Moreover, as already
pointed out, the third accused has filed the discharge application at the
first instance and after dismissal of the same, now the accused have set up
the petitioner/second accused to file the above application and that the
above would go to show that the accused have been attempting to drag on
the proceedings. Hence, this Court concludes that the revision is devoid of
merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
19.10.2024
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
To
1. The V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
S.S. Colony Police Station,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Pre-Delivery Order made in
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9631 and 9632 of 2024
Dated : 19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
