N.Ranjithkumar v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.MP .No.16825 of 2024 N.Ranjithkumar ...
Petitioner / A.6 Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, OCU-II, CBCID, Egmore, Chennai.
... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. / 438 r/w 442 of BNSS to call for the records in Crl.MP No.3402 of 2019 in C.C.No.9888 of 2018 dated 18.10.2024 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet at Chennai and set aside the same subsequently allow the discharge petition by the petitioner. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Subash For Respondent :
Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) Page No.1 of 5
O R D E R
The revision petition challenges the dismissal of the discharge petition by the learned Magistrate.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Manojrajan who is aged about 36 years is deaf and dumb and has a mental disability was admitted in a Charity Home by one Anandan; that in the year 2015 one Priyadharshini, who is said to be wife of Manojrajan had filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court and this Court had ordered status quo; that on 04.12.2016 at about 2.00 p.m., the said Priyadharshini, her sister and few others along with the petitioner had gone to the Home and under the guise of meeting him, had taken the said Manojrajan from the Home and that on the complaint of the Managing Trustee of the Home, an FIR was registered.
3. On investigation, the respondent filed a final report against the petitioner, who is arrayed as A6 and ten others alleging the commission of the offence under section 120(b), 365, 347 and 420 IPC. The petitioner filed a discharge petition before the Trial Court and the same was dismissed Page No.2 of 5
on 10.12.2019.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that none of the witnesses and the documents had implicated the petitioner; that the evidence at best discloses the presence of the petitioner which is not sufficient to establish the offence of kidnapping and that the petitioner was only doing his professional duty. He would further submit that the petitioner is sought to be implicated in one instance of kidnapping and that in the other instance he is not involved and he is sought to be prosecuted for the offence of conspiracy which cannot be sustained.
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent.
6. The submission of the petitioner in effect is to urge this court to hold that the petitioner's presence is innocous. That cannot be done at this stage. It is well settled that at the stage of charge framing, grave suspicion is sufficient to frame charge. The probative value, the veracity and the effect of the evidence cannot be gone into at that stage. The probable Page No.3 of 5
defence of the accused on facts can only be decided in the trial.
7. That apart, the discharge petition was filed in the year 2019 and the instant revision has been filed belatedly. Hence, this Court is of the view that the points raised by the petitioner can be raised before the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this revision.
8. However, considering the profession of the petitioner, his presence before the Trial Court is dispensed with, unless it is required by the learned Magistrate for the progress of the Trial. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the trial court that he will not dispute his identity and that the counsel named by him in the affidavit will cross examine the prosecution witness.
9. In the result, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 29.11.2024 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Page No.4 of 5
rgr SUNDER MOHAN, J.
rgr To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, OCU-II, CBCID, Egmore, Chennai.
2.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
29.11.2024 Page No.5 of 5