High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.13647 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.Nos.9062 and 9064 of 2024Mohamed Bilaludin... PetitionerVs.1.State rep by itsThe Inspector of Police,Muthupettai Police Station,Tiruvarur.(Crime No.336 of 2007).2.B.Manoharan ..Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in PRC No.4 of 2023 pending on the files of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, Tiruvarur and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner: Mr.I.Abdul BasithPage 1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (crl.side).O R D E RThis criminal original petition has been filed challenging the proceedings in PRC No.4 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, Tiruvarur by claiming parity upon the judgement that was passed in favour of A2, A3, A4, A7, A11, A12 and A14 in S.C.No.66 of 2015, dated 17.03.2016 by the learned Assistant Sessions Court, Mannargudi.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent.3.The petitioner has been arrayed as A15. The final report was filed against 38 accused persons for offence under Sections 148, 450, 307 r/w 109 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. The case was split up and A2, A3, A4, A7, A11,A12 and A14 underwent trial. The Trial Court on Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025appreciation of evidence rendered the following findings:16/fhak;gl;l m/rh/2 Md utp vd;gth; jdJ mz;zz;““ filapy; ,Ue;jnghJ Rkhh; 150 ngh; bfhz;l Fk;gy; bkhj;jkhf te;J fy;iy vhpe;jhh;fs; vd;Wk; jdf;F kz;il cile;jJ vd;Wk;/////// vjphpfis jdf;F bjhpahJ vd;Wk;. g[fhh; bfhLj;j” m/rh/1 Md kndhfud; vd;gthpd; Kjy; tprhuizapy; 150 ngh;“ bfhz;l Tl;lj;jpdh; bkhj;jkhf te;J fy;iy vhpe;J fl;ilahy; mlpj;J filia nrjg;gLj;jpdhh;fs; vd;Wk;. jd; filapypUe;j jk;gp utp vd;gtUf;Fk; jiyapy; mlpg;gl;lJ vd;Wk;////// vjphpfs; me;J Tl;lj;jpy; ,Ue;jhh;fsh vd;why; bjhpahJ vd;Wk;. m/rh/3” Kjy; m/rh/12 tiuapyhdth;fs; vjphpfis bjhpahJ vd;W rhl;rpak; mspj;jpUg;gjhy; muRj;jug;gpy; gpwH;rhl;rpfshf ghtpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;fs;/17/muRj;jug;gpy; tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;s fhak;gl;l eguhd m/rh/2 g[fhh; bfhLj;J m/rh/1 cl;gl jdpegh; rhl;rpfshf tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;s m/rh/1 Kjy; m/rh/12 tiuapyhd rhl;rpfs; gpwH; rhl;rpfshf ghtpf;fg;gl;lpUg;gJ muR jug;g[ tHf;if ghjpg;gjhf cs;sJ/ muRj;jug;gpy; tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;s jdp egh; rhl;rpfs; midtUk; gpwH;rhl;rpfshf ghtpf;fg;gl;lpUg;gjhYk;. Vjphpfis tHf;F rk;gtj;Jld; bjhlh;g[ gLj;Jk; tifapy; muRj;jug;gpy; rhl;rpak; mspf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gjhYk;. muR tHf;F ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd jPh;khzpj;J mjdhy; vjphpfs; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; re;njfj;jpw;fplkpd;wp epUgpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd jPh;khdpj;J. re;njfj;jpd; gyd; vjphpfSf;F rhjfkhf Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ 18/,Wjpapy;. 2.3.4.11.12.14 Mfpa vjphpfs; ,/j/gphpt[fs; 148.450.307 c/, 149 kw;Wk; jkpH;ehL bghJ brhj;Jf;fs; nrjg;gLj;Jjy; kw;Wk; ,Hg;g[r;rl;l gphpt[ 3(1) Mfpa gphpt[fspd; fPGk;. 3tJ vjphp ,/j/gphpt[ 148.450.307 kw;Wk; jkpH;ehL bghJ brhj;Jf;fs; nrjg;gLj;Jjy; kw;Wk; ,Hg;g[r;rl;l gphpt[ 3(1) Mfpa gphpt[fspd; fPGk; Fw;wthspfs; ,y;iy vd;W jPh;khdpj;J F/tp/K/r/ 235(1) gphptpd;glp tpLjiy bra;J jPh;g;gspf;fg;gLfpwJ/”4.In the light of the above findings, the accused persons who underwent trial were acquitted from all charges.5.The petitioner who is ranked as A15 also stands on the same footing. The question is as to whether the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the other accused persons will also apply in favour of the petitioner or not. The above issue is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.20934 of 2019, dated 05.08.2019 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:“4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment that was passed in S.C.No.133 of 2016, will enure to the benefit of these petitioners also and there is no other evidence available as against the petitioners. In order to substantiate the submissions, the learned Counsel Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7407 of 2017, dated 11.09.2018 (Dinesh vs. State and Ors.) reported in MANU/TN/5262/2018.5.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police.6.It will be relevant to extract the petitions of the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as follows:“4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the said acquittal order passed in favour of A1 to A3, the benefit of the same will also enure in favour of the petitioner and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the very FIR itself that is pending against the petitioner.5.The learned counsel in order to substantiate the submission brought to the notice of this Court two judgments passed by this Court. The first judgment is in Thamilendi Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District and another reported in 2008 (2) CTC 153, wherein in similar circumstances, this Court exercised its power under Section 482 and quash the proceedings on the Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025ground that the split up case ended into acquittal in favour of the other accused persons. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted here under.“6.The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Tamilmaran v. State [MANU/TN/8381/2007 : 2007 (1) LW (Crl.) 514, to the proposition that in the event of acquittal of the other accused disbelieving the entire prosecution case, no useful purpose would be served for putting the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial. In that decision this Court placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar v. State [2000 (1) Crimes 73], wherein it is held as follows:“3.The question thus is as to whether in the face of thejudgment of acquittal the petitioner should still be permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial. In Sat Kumar v. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0168/1973 : AIR 1974 SC 294, it was held that there is no rule of law that if the Court acquits some of the accused on the evidence of a witness raising doubt with regard to them the other accused against whom there is absolute certainty about his complicity in the crime Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025based on the remaining credible part of the evidence of that witness must be acquitted. (See also Har Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0112/1971 : AIR 1971 SC 1450; Ma-kan Jivan v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0136/1971 : AIR 1971 SC 1797; Mohd. Moin Uddin v. State of Maharashtra., MANU/SC/0144/1971 : 1971 SCC (Cri.) 617. But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused person have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence. 4.On perusal of the judgment of acquittal dated 19.01.1998, it appears that the deceased Balwan Singh met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries sustained by him has not been disputed by the accused persons. The evidenceagainst the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, namely, Karan singh (PW2) and Smt.Asha Rani (PW5) (Wife of the deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex. PW13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh. Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025hostile by the prosecution. Eliminating the evidence of the said eyewitnesses, there remains the dying declaration. (Ex. PW13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh, which has been disbelieved by the learned additional Sessions Judge. It would, therefore, appear that the accused persons, namely, Jangli tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Thus, the evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the code itself.”;7.This Court has also placed reliance on yet another Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025decision of the Karnataka High Court in Mohammed Ilias V. State of Karnataka, MANU/KA/0744/2001 : 2001 (4) Crimes 417, taking the same view by following the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court [Tamilmaran V. State, MANU/TN/8381/2007 : 2007 (1) LW (Crl.) 514)]. 8.Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the above settled principle of law laid down in the decisions cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also except the petitioner herein all the other accused viz., A1 to A6, A8 and A9 who have been tried separately in S.C.No.86 of 1991 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge disbelieving the entire prosecution case and holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges including the charge under Section 302 IPC against A3 who is the only accused allege to have attacked the deceased.”6.The second judgment is in Anbuselvam Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal reported in 2018 (2) MWN (Cr.) 442. The relevant portion of the judgment are extracted here under:“8.The above proposition is self-explanatory. In view of the acquittal of other three Accused, after Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025considering the statements of the witnesses and holding their statements to be unreliable, the Trial Court cannot reassess their depositions once again and take a contrary view. Since the proceedings against the petitioner has to necessarily end in as acquittal, no useful purpose would be served to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of the trial.”7.The above said judgments squarely applies to the facts ofthe present case. When the main accused persons have been acquitted on the ground that no case has been made out against them, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the FIR pending against the petitioner.”7.It is seen from records that the petitioners are also placedon par with the other accused persons who were acquitted by the Trial Court in S.C.No.133 of 2016. The above judgment will squarely apply to the facts of the present case also. When the main accused persons have been acquitted on the ground that no case has been made out against them, no useful purpose will be served by making the petitioners undergo the ordeal of facing the trial .6.It is also relevant to take note of the judgement of the Apex Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025Court in Javed Shaukat Ali Quershi vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2023 SC 4444.7.In the result, proceedings in PRC No.4 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, Tiruvarur, is hereby quashed and accordingly, this criminal original petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.30.04.2025Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking ordershkG.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.shkPage 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13647 of 2025To1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, Tiruvarur 2.The Inspector of Police,Muthupettai Police Station,Tiruvarur.3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.13647 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.Nos.9062 and 9064 of 202430.04.2025Page 12 of 12