S.Suresh, Aged 27 Yrs v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 21.08.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.No.6091 of 2017 S. Suresh ... Petitioner/3rd Accused Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Thittagudi, Taluk : Thittakudi Cuddalore District - 606 111.

2. Sathya Bama ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to C.C.No.146 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District, and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Bharat Kumar For R1 : Mrs.M.Prabhavathi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to C.C.No.146 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District and quash the same.

2. On the complaint lodged by Sathya Bama, the first respondent police have registered a case in Crime No. 238 of 2016 on 12.10.2016 and completed the investigation and have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.146 of 2016, which is pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District, for the offences under Sections 109, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, against three accused, viz., Ramar (A1), Selvarasu (A2) and Suresh (A3), for

quashing which, Suresh (A3) is before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant is a close relative of the petitioner and that there were disputes between two families, on account of which, a false complaint was given and Suresh has been prosecuted based on that. He further contended that Suresh was not in India at the relevant point of time and he was abroad. In support of his contention, he has submitted a photocopy of Suresh's passport.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, took this Court through the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the de facto complainant. On a reading of the said statement, it is seen that the de facto complainant has clearly stated that Suresh was having an eye on her and wanted to marry her, however, she got married to one Venkatesan and she has a child through him; Suresh came to her village from abroad and once again made sexual advances on her, to which she resisted. Angered by that, Suresh avenged that he will ruin her matrimonial life. On such instigation, A1 went to the school where her daughter studies, to give biscuit to her daughter; the Principal of the school did not permit and informed about the same to the de facto complainant; when the de facto complainant went to the school, she was shown the photograph of A1 as having come to the school for giving biscuit to her daughter; when the de facto complainant questioned A1, he pulled her saree, tore her jacket and assaulted her.

6. Thus, there are sufficient materials in the charge sheet for the trial to proceed against all the three accused. Alibi is a question of fact relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act and the same cannot be decided and has to be proved like any other fact and this Court cannot go into the question of alibi in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Hence, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points before the trial Court after charges are framed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and complete the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, provided the accused cooperate for examination and cross-examine the prosecution

witnesses on the day they are examined-in-chief, as held by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab [2015(1) MLJ (Crl) 288]. On such a petition being filed, the trial Court may liberally consider the same. If the accused adopt any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial Court to insist upon their presence and remand them to custody as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shambhu Nath Singh [JT 2001

(4) SC 319].

-s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar kal/mkn To

1. The Inspector of Police, Thittagudi, Taluk : Thittakudi Cuddalore District - 606 111.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1 CC to Mr.C. Bharath Kumar, Advocate sr 57535. Crl.O.P.No.6091 of 2017 SP(11/09/2018)