Judgment · High Court

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED:22.09.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHCrl.O.P.(MD).No.11921 of 2011 AndM.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011P.Murugesan...Petitioner/Accused - 29-Vs-1.State rep. by Inspector of PoliceSwamimalai Police StationSwamimalaiThanjavur2.A.K.Sivakumar...Respondent/ComplainantPRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, to call for records charge sheet in P.R.C.No. 72 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.KrishnamoorthyFor 1st Respondent : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan Government Advocate

O R D E RThe Petitioner, who has been arrayed as 29 in P.R.C.No. 72 of 2010,for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 307 ofIPC read with 109 of IPC, has come forward to file this Petition to quash the said proceedings.

In pursuant to the complaint, dated 31.12.2008, a case has been registered in Crime No. 175 of 2008 and a final report was filed by the respondent, which has been taken on file in P.R.C.No. 72 of 2010. Thepetitioner herein has been arrayed as A-29. The allegation is to the effect that while the de-facto complainant and other students held sit-in-strike inside the school campus, the accused persons wielding weapons such as knife, spear, aruval and wooden logs and using filthy language and to attack them.

The case of the petitioner is that the offence under Section109 of IPC has not been made out as the material available on record do not indicate the parameters mentioned therein for abetment. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Ram Vs. State of U.P., reported inAIR 1975 SCC 175, and submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner will have to be quashed.

Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it has been stated that a perusal of the FirstInformation Report and 161(3) statement of the witnesses as well as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2confession statement of the accused clearly proved that the offence was committed at the instigation on the aid of the petitioner. It is further stated that the perusal of the complaint itself would show that the main accused attributed words about the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. Accordingly, it is stated that the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

It is further stated that the case has been committed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kumbakonam, on 10.06.2011itself and the case has been numbered as S.C.No. 188 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kumbakonam and the case is posted for framing charges against the accused.

As submitted by the respondent, it cannot be said that there isno material for the alleged offence attributed against the petitioner. The question as to whether the charge levelled against the petitioner is true or not can only be posted by the Trial Court. It is seen that the case has been committed to the learned Additional Assistant SessionsJudge, Kumbakonam and the same is numbered as S.C.No. 188 of 2001 and the case is posted for framing of charges against the accused. It is further to be seen that the charge sheet has been filed taking note of the submissions made under 161(3) statement as well as the confession statement of the accused and the averments made in the complaint. Afterinvestigation, the respondent has filed the charge sheet.

Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interefere with the proceedings pending on the file of the learned Additional AssistantSessions Judge, Kumbakonam in S.C.No. 188 of 2001. The question as to whether the petitioner is genuine case or not will have to be decided by the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence available before it.