Rajendran v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.08.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN Crl.O.P. No.20106 of 2024 and Crl.M.P. Nos.11660 & 11662 of 2024 Rajendran Aruvi @ Arivu Selvi Petitioners vs.

State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector of Police Hogenakkal Police Station Dharmapuri District 636 810 Madhammal Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records of proceedings in C.C. No.6 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pennagaram and quash the same. For petitioner Ms. P. Leelavathi

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the case in C.C. No. 6 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pennagaram.

2.

On a perusal of the final report, it is evident that on account of a property dispute between the respondent/de facto complainant and her

brothers and some others in their family, a quarrel had erupted on 23.11.2022 near the house of the respondent/de facto complainant, in which, the respondent/de facto complainant had been attacked, due to which, she had been hurt.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the materials collected during the course of investigation do not disclose any cognizable offence, particularly, any offence attracting Sections 147 and 148 IPC for which the essential ingredient is common object. He further submitted that the accident register discloses only simple injuries sustained by the respondent/de facto complainant and not grievous injuries.

4.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the statement of witnesses would disclose that the first petitioner (A1), second petitioner (A6) and some others had assembled unlawfully near the house of the respondent/de facto complainant where masonry work was going on. There was also a wordy quarrel leading to abuse in filthy language and restraint besides causing hurt to the respondent/de facto complainant.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and also perused the materials placed on record.

6.

Since prima facie materials are available to proceed against the petitioners for the cognizable offence committed by them, this is not a fit case to quash the prosecution, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent/de facto complainant and the first petitioner are siblings. In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.

21.08.2024 cad

DR. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

cad 21.08.2024