K.Marimuthu v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 13/09/2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.6027 and 6028 of 2019 K.Marimuthu : Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1.State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Seithur Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District, In Crime No.214 of 2018 : R1/Complainant 2.Krishnan : R2/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in CC No.75 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudunagar and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnasamy For 1st Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman Additional Public Prosecutor For 2nd Respondent : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu 1/6

O R D E R

This criminal original petition is filed seeking quashment of the case in CC No.75 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 14/12/2018 at about 6.00 am, when the de-facto complainant was irrigating his land, the accused person came there and picked up quarrel stating that why he is working for Madasamy and abused him in filthy language. When that was objected, he was assaulted with hands and criminally intimidated. Over the above said issue, a case was registered in Crime No.214 of 2018 for the offences under sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC. After completing the formalities of investigation, final report has been filed and it was taken cognizance in CC No.75 of 2019 by the trial court. 3.Seeking quashment of the final report, this petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly on factual grounds. 4.Heard both sides.

2/6

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that only bald allegation has been made by the complainant in the complaint and the word that was used by the petitioner at the time of the alleged occurrence for abusing the de-facto complainant, has not been mentioned; Similarly, there is no specific allegation to the effect that because of the criminal intimidation, the de-facto complainant was under threat to his life; There is a delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint and actually, there was dispute between the above said Madasamy and the petitioner and by using the de-facto complainant, this false case has been given; there was no injury to him and the injury might have been suffered to the complainant at the time of irrigating the lands; Apart from that, he has also mentioned that the person, who registered the FIR must not investigate the matter. According to him, this is also not legal.

6.Specific allegation has been mentioned in the complaint. Prima facie records shows that the witnesses and the Doctor, who treated the petitioner has also been examined by the Investigating Officer. He also found injury on the cheek region. The above said injury alleged to have been caused by the petitioner and sustained the same during 3/6

the course of work, cannot be a matter for consideration in this petition. It is a factual issue, which has to be properly tried.

7.Similarly, the word used by the petitioner has been mentioned and there is no allegation to the effect that because of the criminal intimidation, the de-facto complainant entertained fear of death, cannot be a matter for consideration. It is also a matter for evidence. 8.The contention that the person, who registered the FIR has also investigated the matter cannot be found fault. There is no bar for the police officer, who registered the FIR, to investigate the matter. Only the informer can be barred from investigating the matter. But not a person who recorded the FIR. This argument is also not convincing and acceptable. The delay of four days in lodging the complaint is also not a matter for consideration during trial. Whether all the witnesses are interested witnesses to the above said Madasamy also cannot be taken into account, while exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. So, I find no merit in this petition.

4/6

9.In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

13.09.2022 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No er 5/6

G.ILANGOVAN,J., er To, 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Seithur Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District, 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

13/09/2022 6/6