K.Ramalingam, M/70, v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 25.11.2021 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.4264 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3198 & 3199 of 2017 K. Ramalingam

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Pallapatti Police Station, Salem.

2. Veeraprasath

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.180 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem and quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Parthasarathy For Respondents:

R1 - Mr.R.Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) R2 - No appearance

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the final report filed in C.C.No.180 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem for the offences under sections 294 [b] and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that on 07.08.2012, the accused, due to previous enmity, used vituperative language and

abused him and it is also alleged that he made intimidation orally. Thereby, the accused was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present case is nothing but a counter blast of the complaint lodged by the accused which has been registered in Crime No.780 of 2012 for the offences under section 294[b] and 506[ii] IPC. It is his further contention that the above complaint has been filed after a delay of one month and the same has been motivated. Hence, submitted that continuance of prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law.

3. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] submitted that there are materials against the petitioner to proceed with the case and hence, the final report cannot be quashed.

4. Normally this Court is reluctant to interfere with the final report. When the allegation in entirety when considered and the same is a result of previous motive and the allegations are motivated as a counter blast, the Courts, in order to prevent the abuse the process of law, would interfere with the final report.

5. A perusal of entire materials, it is seen that except saying that the accused had abused and made oral threat and there are no materials whatsoever to prove the offences alleged against the petitioner. It is relevant to note that an earlier complaint has been registered against the defacto complainant in Crime No.780 of 2012 and the present complaint appears to be filed with a delay of one month. The same clearly indicate that it has been filed as a counter blast of the earlier complaint lodged by the petitioner. Further, a reading of the entire complaint reveals that only for the purpose of the complaint, the allegation of abuse and threat have been introduced in the complaint. The very delay, of more that one month after the previous complaint lodged by the petitioner, clearly indicate that the present complaint is nothing but motivated. Therefore, continuance of prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed

and the case in C.C.No.180 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem against the petitioner is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vrc/kbs To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.

2. The Inspector of Police, Pallapatti Police Station, Salem.

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

+1cc to Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate, S.R.No.61056 Crl.O.P.No.4264 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3198 & 3199 of 2017 SPD(CO) SU(08/12/2021)