Madras High Court
S.Senthilkumar vs State Rep. By on 3 September, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1380 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1380 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.951 of 2024
S.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Pappanadu Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(In Crime No.226 of 2013)
2.Nagarajan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet
in C.C.No.48 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Orathanadu and quash the same as illegal insofar as the
petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth
For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
_____________
Page No. 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:43:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1380 of 2024
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final
report filed against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 342, 324, and 506(ii) of the IPC in C.C.No.48 of 2019, on
the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu.
2. The allegation in the final report is that on 10.10.2013, at about
11:00 a.m., there was a dispute regarding the sharing of water between the
defacto complainant and the accused, including the petitioner/A3 herein,
as a result of which a wordy quarrel ensued and that Accused Nos.1 and 2,
who are the parents of the petitioner/A3, held the hands of the defacto
complainant and the petitioner/A3 attacked the defacto complainant with
an aruval and caused injury and thus committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was arrayed as A3 in the final report; that on account of his
employment, he had to travel to Singapore; and that since he was unable
to return to India and could not appear for trial, the case against the
petitioner was split up, and Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the parents of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:43:59 pm )
the petitioner, were tried in C.C. No. 64 of 2014. He would further submit
that in the trial conducted against Accused Nos.1 and 2, all the witnesses,
including the second respondent, turned hostile, as a result of which
Accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted. He would therefore submit that the
impugned prosecution against the petitioner is also liable to be quashed,
as no useful purpose would be served in directing the petitioner to face
trial for the aforesaid offences before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent
would submit that all the witnesses turned hostile and that the suggestion
made by the prosecution to the witnesses is that they had turned hostile
because they had arrived at a compromise with the accused therein. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, is unable to distinguish
the case of the petitioner from that of the two accused, namely, the parents
of the petitioner, on facts.
5. Though notice has been served on the second respondent/defacto
complainant and his name has been printed in the cause list, none has
entered appearance.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:43:59 pm )
6. This Court has perused the judgment of the trial court in C.C.No.
64 of 2014 dated 17.10.2019 passed in the case of the co-accused. From
the judgment, it is clear that eight witnesses were examined to prove the
case of the prosecution. Out of the eight witnesses, seven turned hostile
and the eighth witness was the Investigating Officer. The evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.8 in C.C.No.64 of 2014, which has been enclosed in the
typed set of papers filed in this petition, would indicate that no distinction
can be made between the case of the petitioner and that of Accused Nos.1
and 2, who were acquitted in the said case. The prosecution has not
challenged the acquittal.
7. The petitioner has also explained the reason for his absence and
as to why he could not participate in the trial along with Accused Nos.1
and 2.
8. In the light of the facts, this Court is of the view that the
judgment of the trial court in C.C.No.64 of 2014 dated 17.10.2019,
acquitting the co-accused, who are the parents of the petitioner, has to
enure to the benefit of the petitioner as well. Accordingly, the impugned
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:43:59 pm )
prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and is,
accordingly, quashed.
9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.09.2025
JEN
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Copy To:
1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Orathanadu, Thanjavur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Pappanadu Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:43:59 pm )
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
and
03.09.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:43:59 pm )
