Dharma v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-11-2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CRL MP Nos. 22736 & 22739 of 2025 1.Dharma S/o.Kannaiyan, 365 Palaikara Street, Vada Madurai, Thiruvallur District.

2.Deepak S/o.Gopal Chinnaiyan, 3/13 Agalamman Kovil Street, Adhidravidar Colony, Madhavaram, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

3.Naveen Kumar @ Naveen S/o.Venkatesan, Perumal Kovil Street, Pethanayakan Pettai, Kilambakkam, Periyapalayam, Thiruvallur District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. By The Inspector of police, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No. 225/2023.

..Respondent(s) __________Page 1 of 5

To set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 2/2025 in S.C.No. 197/2024 dt. 18.11.2025 on the file of the XVIII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai and discharge the petitioner from S.C.No. 197/2024 on the file of the XVIII Additional judge, City Civil Court at Chennai. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. T.Muruganantham For Respondent(s):

Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed by the XVIII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.2of 2023 in S.C.No. 197 of 2024 dated 18.11.2025, the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

2. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case as if they along with other accused attacked the Conductor and Driver of the bus on the date of alleged occurrence and they are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, they have filed a petition to discharge them from the __________Page 2 of 5

proceedings before the trial court and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, they have preferred this Criminal Revision Case. He would further submit that on the date of alleged occurrence, nearly about 30 students inside the bus and the petitioners have not involved in the occurrence, but their names alone were falsely implicated. But, the trial judge failed to take note of the facts and the trial judge also failed to take note that there is no independent witnesses to support the case of prosecution even in the final report. Hence, they are entitled to discharge from the proceedings as they were falsely implicated in this case.

3. On perusal of records, except the Driver and Conductor of a bus, the respondent police has not implicated any independent witnesses. Admittedly, as per the F.I.R. allegation, on the date of occurrence, the defacto complainant was attacked by the petitioners with stone in the presence of public, but none of the witnesses from the bus was implicated as eye-witnesses, which shows that the prosecution has not filed the final report with prima facie materials against these petitioners. So, there is no prima facie materials to implead these petitioners for the offence under Sec.341, 294(b), 353, 332 and 506(2) I.P.C. for prosecuting __________Page 3 of 5

them as accused and they were students at that time. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and all the petitioners were discharged from charges initiated in S.C.No. 197 of 2024 on the file of XVIII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

27-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rpp To 1.XVIII Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. __________Page 4 of 5

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

RPP and CRL MP Nos.22736 & 22739 of 2025 27-11-2025 __________Page 5 of 5