R.Murugasamy v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.07.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.OP No.15788 of 2016 R.Murugasamy ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Thiruppur District.

2. A.Prakash ... Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.64 of 2016 pending on the file of the Principal District Session Judge, Thirupur and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Elvina Danial For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.64 of 2016 pending on the file of the Principal District Session Judge, Thirupur and quash the same.

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

3. On a complaint lodged by one A.Prakash, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.626 of 2015 and after completing the investigation, the respondent police filed a final report against the petitioner for offence under Section 302 IPC and after committal the case, which is pending in S.C.No.64 of 2016 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thirupur, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no prima facie materials against the petitioner for trial to proceed.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the first respondent submitted that charges in S.C.No.64 of 2016 have been framed and the case is posted for trial on 08.08.2016.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a dispute between the accused family and the family of Palanisamy, the deceased and that, on 23.08.2015, when the petitioner was constructing a compound wall. Palanisamy, the deceased came to the spot and a quarrel ensued, in which, the petitioner is said to have attacked Palanisamy with stone and caused his death.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the complaint given by Prakash, he has named three persons viz., Murugasamy, Palanisamy and Thangavelu, but whereas, in the final report, Thangavel and Palanisamy have been deleted and only Murugasamy has been made an accused. That apart, in 164 Cr.P.C statement of one S.Kirupa, the petitioner has not been implicated.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, these are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a petition for quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, it is open to the petitioner to take advantage of these discrepancies during the trial.

With the above observation, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sms To

1. The Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Thiruppur District.

2. The Principal District Session Judge, Thirupur.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.Elvina Danial, Advocate, S.R.No.42536 Crl.OP No.15788 of 2016 PVS(CO) CA(16/08/2016)