V. Andiappan v. The Inspector of Police & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.10712 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007V. Andiappan.. PetitionerVersus1.The Inspector of Police,E-5, Arambakkam Police Station,Thiruvallur District.2.Arasu3.Dhurrchandra Reddy4.Gunasekaran5.Tharani6.Suresh7.Shankar8.Sekar9.Paramasivam10.Moorthi11.Loganathan12.Chinniaya13.Jayavel14.Selvam15.Kumar16.Babu17.Ramachandran18.Munivel19.Sivaraman20.Arumugam21.Ganapathi22.Dhayalan23.Chandran24.Kuppan25.Balaraman26.Ramesh27.Senthil Kumar28.Ananda Kumar29.Baskar.. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the learnedMagistrate No.I, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District, to commit the case inE-5, Arambakkam Police Station Crime No.426 of 2001 now pending trialas the case in C.C.No.339 of 2003 on the file of the learned JudicialMagistrate No.I, Ponneri, to the Sessions Court, Thiruvallur, forfurther proceedings under Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C, for the offenceunder Section 302 IPC.For Petitioner : M/s.E.J.Ayyappan (No appearance)For Respondent-1 : Mr. R.Muniappa raj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondents 2to29 : M/s. Gita AsokanO R D E RThe petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petitionfor direction to direct the learned Magistrate No.I, Ponneri,Thiruvallur District, to commit the case in E-5, Arambakkam PoliceStation Crime No.426 of 2001 now pending trial as the case inC.C.No.339 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.I, Ponneri, to the Sessions Court, Thiruvallur, for furtherproceedings under Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C, for the offence underSection 302 IPC.2.The petitioner contended in the petition that he wasexamined as the prosecution witness No.6 in C.C.No.339 of 2003 on thefile of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ponneri, for a caseregistered on an offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 336, 323, 324,337 and 307 IPC. Subsequently, the said case was altered for offenceunder Sections 147, 148, 351, 332, 324, 336 r/w.149 of IPC. 3.The prosecution case was that the petitioner's son, by nameM.Gnanapraksh was attacked by the accused persons when he attemptedto prevent the accused from disturbing the panchayat polls held on16.10.2001. The petitioner and the first accused namely, Arasu, sonof Govinda Reddy were the rival candidates for the post of panchayatpresidents. The petitioner further contended that the respondents 2to 29 / accused 1 to 28 attacked the petitioner's son, Gnanaprakash,now deceased, with sticks, stones and by kicking him on the stomachwith the result, the victim sustained internal bleeding injuries.Immediately, the said Gnanaprakash was admitted in the hospital on16.10.2001 and later he succumbed to the injuries sustained and diedin the hospital on 21.10.2001.4.The petitioner, immediately, filed another complaint on21.10.2001 to the respondent police informing them about the death ofhis son and that was as a result of the injuries sustained by him on16.10.2001 at the hands of the respondents 2 to 29 /accused 1 to 28 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and consequently, the first respondent/complainant altered FirstInformation Report dated 21.10.2001 for offences under Sections 147,148, 452, 336, 323, 324, 332, 307 and 302 IPC and the FirstInformation Report copy was sent to the Court. Even though, thefirst respondent had informed the petitioner that the case underSection 307 IPC has been altered into an offence under Section 302IPC, the petitioner was shocked to notice that when the final reportwas filed in the year 2003, the major offences of 307 and 302 IPCwere completely deleted and the accused were sought to be proseuctedonly for offences under Sections 147, 148, 352, 332, 336 and 324 r/w.149 IPC by completely suppressing the death of the petitioner's son,which was a direct consequence of the above mentioned incident.5.When the petitioner approached the respondent police againand questioned them as to why the case was not registered for theoffence under Section 302 IPC, he was informed by the respondentpolice that the Additional Public Prosecutor will submit his opinionand that the case will be sent to the Sessions Court in due course.However, the trial of the above mentioned case has commenced beforethe Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, itself and inspite ofevidence supporting the offence under Section 302 IPC , the learnedMagistrate has not taken any steps to refer the case to the Court ofSessions, but on the contrary the Magistrate is attempting to disposeof the case.6.Further, the petitioner had filed a copy applicationseeking for a copy of the entire charge sheet in the above mentionedcase along with the copies of deposition of PW.1 to PW.15 and otherimportant documents mentioned therein, and the petitioner was unableto get the same. The aggrieved petitioner approached this HonourableCourt by way of Criminal Original Petition No.20279 of 2006 fordirection to the Magistrate to issue the certified copies of thedocuments sought by the petitioner. Even though this Court has givennecessary direction to the Magistrate, the petitioner has allegedthat he could not get the same from the learned Magistrate so far.Further, the petitioner contended that the petitioner was examined asPW.6, when he deposed that his son was attacked and killed due toinjuries caused to his son by the accused 1 to 28 on 16.10.2001.7.The petitioner further contended that on 16.10.2001, oneMr.Lakshmipathy, Head Constable, who was attached to the E-5,Arambakkam Police Station informed the respondent police about thisincident which occurred on 16.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitionerlodged a complaint on 21.10.2001 stating that his son died in thehospital due to injuries sustained by the attack of the accused.Further, he requested the respondent police to send the body forpostmortem. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.The learned counsel for the State submitted that totallythere are 26 witnesses in the said occurrence and that most of thewitnesses have been examined; that the case is in a part heard stage.9.The learned counsel for the State and the learned counselfor the accused 1 to 28 argued the case, vehemently, for theirrespective parties.10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, theoccurrence happened on 16.10.2001, in public place, ie., School, inwhich election booth had been set up. At the time of polling, thesaid incident happened due to rivalry between two groups. The samewas witnessed by the village people. The said occurrence is a publiccrime and so, the respondent police is the competent authority andresponsible for proceeding with the case for prosecuion side. So,for public satisfaction and considering the First Information andcontents of the petition and nature of the occurrence, this Courtdirects the first respondent/Inspector of Police to place allconnected records before the learned State Public Prosecutor for hislegal opinion and proceed with the case in accordance with law, asearly as possible. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition isordered. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.mra Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo1.1.The Inspector of Police,E-5, Arambakkam Police Station,Thiruvallur District.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras3. Judicial MaGISTrate NO.II, Ponneri.4. The Sessions court , Thiruvallur.Crl.O.P.No.10712 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007RK(CO)EU 19.8.2009.