Madras High CourtCRL RC/1404/2018dismissed

Velumani v. The State Rep By Its

2018-12-05Honourable Mr Justice V. Parthiban3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 05.12.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN Crl.R.C.No.1404 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.16333 of 2018 Velumani ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep by its The Inspector of Police, Sozhatharam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

... Respondent The Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for records relating to the order dated 23.08.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2018 in S.C.No.115 of 2018 by the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Chidambaram and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Ms.G.S.Dhanalakshmi For Respondent : Mr.G.Harihara Arun Soma Sankar Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The criminal revision case has been filed against the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner herein, who is the fourth accused in the criminal case. The petitioner herein has filed a petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the offences under Sections 120(b), 323, 506(ii) and 302 r/w.34 of IPC.

According to the petitioner, originally his name did not find place either in the complaint or in the FIR, but, subsequently added in the charge sheet. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner, who is the fourth accused, in the occurrence

was doubtful. Hence there was no commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and theory of conspiracy was also doubtful in terms of Section 120(b). Therefore his implication in the charge sheet subsequently was without any basis and therefore he prayed for his discharge from the criminal case.

The learned Sessions Judge, while dealing with the petition, seeking discharge, has given a detailed reason as to how his discharge petition was not maintainable and cannot be allowed. According to the trial Judge, from the evidence as made available and during the course of investigation by the police, it was found that the petitioner herein was directly involved in the commission of crime. According to the learned trial Judge, there appears to be prima facie material against the petitioner for proceeding against him along with the other accused 1 to 3. There was a definite finding by the learned Sessions Judge that from the evidence given by the witnesses there was a prima facie material to hold the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the crime. In the said circumstances, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein to discharge him from the criminal case. As against the above order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 23.08.2018, the present criminal revision case has been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contents as found in the petition filed before the trial court for discharge of the petitioner. In fact, from the contents of the petition filed before the trial Court, no worthwhile objections were raised meriting serious consideration by the trial Court. On the other hand, the learned Sessions Judge has given an elaborate reason to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the execution of crime and eventually found that there was overwhelming material to proceed against the petitioner along with the other accused. While dealing with the petition, seeking discharge, all that the trial Court was expected to do was to ensure to see whether there is any prima facie material available for not entertaining the discharge petition. In this case, it appears from the records, there was more than prima facie material available for not entertaining the discharge petition.

For the above said reasons this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, and the

present revision case is hence devoid of merit and substance and the same is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cgi To

1. The II Additional District Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.

2. The Inspector of Police, Sozhatharam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.R.C.No.1404 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.16333 of 2018 RSI(CO) CSL/07.01.2019