Madras High Court
Christin @ Christin Medonald vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.842 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.842 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.560 & 561 of 2025
1. Christin @ Christin Medonald
2. Merlin @ Christin Medonald
3. Mani .. Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kaliyakkavilai,
Kanyakumari District.
Crime No. 214/22
2. Reji ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
To call for the records in C.C No. 149 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai and quash the same in so far as the
petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioner : M/s. SC.Herold Singh
For Respondents : Mr. A.Thiruvadi Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.842 of 2025
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused
persons, who are arrayed as A2 to A4 to quash the case in C.C.No.149 of
2023 on the file of the second respondent Police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2022 at about
03.45p.m., near the YMCA Playground, due to previous enmity, the
petitioners along with other accused persons had picked up a quarrel with
the defacto complainant, abused and assaulted him with a knfie. They
also threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Based
on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, a case in Cr.No.214 of
2022 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147,
148, 294(b), 324, 326, 506(ii) IPC. After the completion of
investigation, final report was filed before Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kuzhithurai and the same was taken on file as CC No.149 of 2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
there are sweeping allegations against the petitioners. There are specific
overt act against the petitioners. The first petitioner is working in Sales
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Department, 2nd petitioner is running a Company at Chennai and the
3rd petitioner is a retired Sub Inspector of Police and all are hailing from
Chennai. They had come to their village, ie., place of occurrence for
celebrating festival. Due to previous enmity between the defacto
complainant and the other accused persons, the petitioners have been
falsely implicated in this case. There is no case made out against the
accused persons. Hence, prays to allow the petition.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in
this case, there are three injured persons. Since the injured have
sustained fracture, the petitioners are charged with 326 IPC apart from
other offence. The petitioners are being charged with an offence under
Sections 147 / 148 IPC, all are liable for all the overt act committed by
other accused persons. The contention of the petitioners that they are
innocents is not accepted and it has to be decided at the of trial. Hence,
prays to dismiss the petition.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Perused the materials available on record.
6.It is seen from the records that in this case, there are totally
5 accused persons and 12 witnesses have been listed on the side of
prosecution. Due to the incident, three witnesses have sustained injuries,
that too grievous. The accused persons are charged with offence under
Section 326 IPC apart from other offence. Since the accused persons
have been charged with the offence of forming part of an unlawful
assembly, each of the members are liable for all the overt act committed
by other accused persons also. Though the contentions of the petitioners
that they are hailing from Chennai and they have been implicated in this
case only as a crossfire, their contentions have to be decided at the of
trial only.
7.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash
the case against the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all
the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the fact that the
petitioners are hailing from Chennai, the personal appearance of the
petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners shall be
present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing
charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing
judgment.
8.Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.01.2025
NCC: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PNM
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kaliyakkavilai, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.560 & 561 of 2025
21.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
