Madras High Court
Elayaraja vs / on 10 September, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
Crl.O.P.No.20724 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:10.09.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.20724 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.No.11905 of 2024
Elayaraja .. Petitioner/Accused-15
/versus/
1.State by The Inspector of Police,
Sendural Police Station,
Ariyalur District.
(Cr.No.3 of 2020) ..1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Mr.Saravanan ..2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of
BNSS to call for the records in S.C.No.25 of 2024 on the file of
Additional Sub Court, Ariyalur and quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.P.Pugalenthi
For R1 :Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20724 of 2024
ORDER
In the course of counting vote during the local body election, a
fight between two groups had erupted. One Sareswathi was declared as
elected. The members of the opposite party had indulged in roadroko and
protested against the declaration of result in favour of Sareswathi by the
Election Officer. In the course of roadroko, it is alleged that the members
of the unlawful assembly had restrained the public and used abusive
language. Four of them poured kerosene on the police team and two of
them tried to set fire on them and others aided and abetted them to do the
said criminal act. Thus, First Information Report was registered in Crime
No. 3 of 2020 and on completion of investigation, final report filed in
P.R.C.No.10 of 2020 against 30 persons before the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendurai, Ariyalur District and the same was
taken cognizance by the Assistant Sessions Judge(FAC), Ariyalur in
S.C.No.44 of 2021. This petitioner was absconding and case against him
got spilt up. Whereas out of 30 accused, 19 of them filed quash petition
in Crl.No.1062 of 2021 and the same was allowed by this Court on
16.02.2021. In respect of the remaining accused, except this petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
against whom the case was spilt up, in S.C.No.44 of 2021 was detained.
After trial, the Additional Sessions Court acquitted all the accused vide
judgment dated 30.3.2023 extending the benefit of doubt. In the said
circumstances, this petitioner was in Abroad, all along, returned to India
and surrendered before the Magistrate and got warrant recalled and
secured himself for trial. The Sessions Court has taken cognizance
against this petitioner in S.C.No.25 of 2024. Till date, the charge was not
framed.
2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that
based on the evidence let in by the prosecution, all the other accused who
faced trial been acquitted and in respect of 19 accused, case against them
even before the trial, quashed by the order of this Court. Therefore, as
against the sole accused against whom there is no overt act attributed in
the final report, there cannot be any charge to be framed and tried.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the final report was filed in the year 2020 against 30 persons for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
offence under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 353, 307 r/w 109 of IPC.
However, after quashing the case as against 19 accused, out of 30
accused, acquittal of 10 accused after full trial, the sole remaining
accused, who is the petitioner herein can neither be charged for the
offences under Sections 147 or 109 of IPC nor Sections 341, 294(b), 353
and 307 of IPC, since there is no material either in the 161 statements
recorded by the police or in the deposition of the witnesses, which were
recorded in the main case in S.C.No.44 of 2021.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that
as per the statements of the witnesses, this petitioner along with others
had aided A2, A3, A4 and A18 and form part of the unlawful assembly.
5. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, while the case against all other accused, either quashed or
ended in acquittal nothing survives to prosecute this petitioner, when the
previous statement of the witnesses nor the subsequent deposition in the
main case does not implicate the petitioner for any of the overtact, even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his presence along with others on the date of occurrence itself is being
highly doubtful and it will be futile exercise to continue the trial against
this petitioner in S.C.No.25 of 2024 (spilt up from S.C.No.44 of 2021).
6. In the said circumstances, this Criminal Original Petition to
quash is allowed. The case in S.C.No.25 of 2024 against the petitioner is
hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
10.09.2024
Index:yes/no
Neutral citation:yes/no
ari
To:
1.Additional Sub Court, Ariyalur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sendural Police Station, Ariyalur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari
and
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
