← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/21457/2010allowed

Dr.Rajendran v. State Rep By

2016-11-15Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.11.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.21457 of 2010 and Crl.M.P.No.11852 of 2016 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Rajendran Petitioner vs.

1.State rep by the Sub Inspector of Police Tharamangalam Police Station Salem District.

2.Kavitha Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash all the proceedings in C.C.No.299 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, Salem District.

For petitioner Mr.B.Vasudevan For R1 Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 Mr.G.Saravanan

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash all the proceedings in C.C.No.299 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, Salem District. closed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.

3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Cr.No.158 of 2005 on 18.04.2005 for offences u/s 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and arrested the accused on 20.04.2005. The accused was released on bail thereafter on 28.04.2005. The first respondent completed the investigation in Cr.No.158 of 2005 and filed a Final Report in

C.C.No.299 of 2009 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur on 29.10.2009 and cognizance was taken on 31.12.2009. Challenging the prosecution, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Final Report is for the offence u/s 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and the maximum punishment for the offence u/s 506(i) IPC is two years and therefore, the prosecution is barred by limitation.

5. Mr.Saravanan, learned counsel for the second respondent fairly conceded the position.

6. It is the case of the de facto complainant/second respondent that the petitioner abused her and threatened her on the date of incident. Though the petition for condonation of delay u/s 473 Cr.P.C. can be filed, nevertheless, taking into consideration the nature of the allegations in the FIR and the Final Report, this Court applies the 'doctrine of triviality' and quashes the prosecution, which is admittedly time barred. In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.299 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate, Omalur is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gms To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, Salem District.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police Tharamangalam Police Station Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.B. Vasudevan, Advocate, S.R.No.65768 +1cc to Mr.G. Saravanan, Advocate, S.R.No.65686 ks(CO) md(29/11/2016) Crl.O.P. No.21457 of 2010