Tamilarasan, M/A-26 v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 10-01-2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1668 OF 2016

1. Tamilarasan

2. Saroja ... Petitioners Vs.

1. State by The Inspector of Police Sankarapuram Police Station Sankarapuram Villupuram District Crime No.233/2016

2. Mr. U. Aandi ... Respondents Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401, Cr.P.C., against the order dated 31-08-2016 passed in C.C.No.107 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District.

For petitioners::

Mr. R. Prabhudoss For respondents::

Mr. M. Mohammed Riyaz, GA(crl.side) for R1 No appearance for R2

ORDER

This revision challenges the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram passed in C.C.No.107 of 2016 on 31-082016. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.

Pursuant to registration of the First Information Report on the file of the first respondent under Sections 447, 294-b, 323, 324 and 506(ii), IPC in Crime No.233 of 2016 on 0506-2016, the petitioners herein, A2 and A3, as also one other were informed to be the accused. After investigation, a final report has been filed by the first respondent informing

commission of offences under Sections 447, 294-b, 323, 324 and 506(ii), IPC only by the first accused. The same did not inform the involvement of these petitioners in the commission of said offences.

4.

The Court-below by the impugned order observed that a perusal of the complaint of the defacto complainant as also the complainant's objections to the final report reveal that a prima facie case of offence under Sections 447, 294-b, 323, 324 and 506(ii), IPC stood made out also against these petitioners. On such reasoning, it proceeded to issue NBWs against them. Given the offences for which the case in Crime No.233 of 2016 on the file of the respondent stood registered and the position that pursuant to investigation thereon, a final report informing commission of offences by the first accused has been filed, this Court finds no reason to suspect the genuineness of the 161(3) statement of the second respondent/defacto complainant recorded by the first respondent. A perusal thereof informs an admission by the second respondent/defacto complainant that these petitioners had been implicated owing to prior enmity and that they were not at the scene at the time of occurrence. 5.

On a perusal of the protest petition moved by the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to observe that many a person can be falsely roped in on mere allegations and unless the same is serious in nature, the Court should go slow in requiring people to undergo trial on the strength thereof. On the facts of this case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are falsely sought to be roped in. The second defendant/defacto complainant though served has not appeared before this Court. The criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 31-08-2016 passed in C.C.No.107 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District is set aside, with regard to the present petitioners alone. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar glp

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District.

2. Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram Police Station, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District.

+1cc to Mr.Santhosh kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.2544 NM(CO) RS(08/03/2017) CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1668 OF 2016