Jayamoorthy @ K.Moorthy v. The Deputy Superintendent Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 04.07.2016 Pronounced on : 03.10.2016 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.R.C.No.1111 of 2014 Jayamoorthy @ K.Moorthy .. Petitioner/ Accused Vs.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee Sub Division, Gingee, Villupuram District.

.. Respondent/ Complainant Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 15.07.2014 made in Crl.MP.No.4356 of 2013 in SC.No.168 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ayyaswamy, No appearance. For Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Riyaz, GA (Crl.side).

ORDER

The Criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram made in Crl.MP.No.4356 of 2013 in SC.No.168 of 2007 dated 15.07.2014, dismissing discharge application filed under Section 239 Cr.PC by the revision petitioner.

2.The trial Court would mainly contend that the discharge petition was filed on 14.06.2013, the said petition was dismissed after long interval of more than one year i.e, on 15.07.2014 by the trail Court and without valid reasons, FIR was also lodged for no reasons. The learned District Judge without assigning any reasons erroneously dismissed the application. It is further contended that the evidence collected on the side of the prosecution do not disclose the commission of any offence to make out a case against the revision petitioner. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, wrongly instituted the case on the accused/petitioner. The lower Court without application of mind dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner that too after a delay of more than one year is liable to be set aside and the learned counsel prays to allow the criminal revision.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) mainly contended that the trial Court has already commenced the examination and cross examination on the side of the defence and the matter is posted for evidence. There are so many incriminating materials available to presume charges against the present accused. The trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the application and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial Court and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

4.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.

5.On perusal of the records, the petitioner stated that the complaint was not given to the concerned official i.e, Deputy Superintendent of Police. The trial Court failed to take note of the motive behind the prosecution due to pressure and influence, the ill-will motive behind the prosecution is visible on the face of the record. Whether it is true or not, the issue has to be decided only after adducing evidence on the side of the both parties and after full fledged trial. The further contention put forth on the side of the revision petitioner is that the special enactment deals with Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) and the provision of Special enactment prevails over the General law.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police is the prosecuting authority, the Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged the final report before the concerned Court. Hence, the argument advanced on the side of the petitioner that the respondent has not registered a case, therefore, the petitioner has to be discharged from the offence as stated above is not acceptable and the said argument is liable to be rejected. 6.The further contention is that there is delay in lodging the FIR and also delay in disposing the discharge application filed by the revision petitioner. On perusal of the FIR and other documents, there are so many incriminating materials available against the accused to presume charges against the revision petitioner/accused.

The trial Court after considering the entire materials comes to a conclusion that there are sufficient materials available to presume charges and rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) in her submission stated PW1 to PW4 were examined and trial is in progress, further the witnesses has to be examined, the prosecution has to cross examine the witnesses of PW1 to PW4.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no incriminating materials available to frame charges against the revision petitioner and prays to discharge the petitioner from the charges, is liable to be rejected. Hence, the above arguments put forth on the side of the petitioner to discharge the revision petitioner from the charges is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. This Court finds there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

9.In the result, the criminal revision stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the defence before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the main case within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS VII ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar tsh To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee Sub Division, Gingee, Villupuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 2 ccs to Mr.P.Ayyaswamy, Advocate, sr. 56569 Crl.R.C.No.1111 of 2014 NRJK (CO) kk 8/11