Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/13960/2017dismissed

G.Sakthibalan, v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police,

2017-10-20Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.10.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.O.P.(MD)No.13960 of 2017 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.9367 and 9368 of 2017 G. Sakthibalan : Petitioner/Sole Accused -Vs1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Palanichettypatti Police Station, Theni District.

:1st Respondent/Complainant 2.G.Arunagiri :2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.251 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni. For Petitioner : Mr. P. Muthuvijayapandian For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.S. Duraipandian Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This petition is filed for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.251 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the criminal complaint lodged by the second respondent as against the petitioner. The complaint was registered for the offence under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC. After filing charge sheet, the case was taken on file in C.C.No.251 of 2017.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a practising Advocate and that the second respondent, de facto complaint is a Police Constable.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complaint is un believable and un natural and he also tried to demonstrate before this Court how the complaint is made. He also Pointed out that all the witnesses are only Police Constables. He would further submit that it is a totally false case against the petitioner. He further submitted that in the complaint it is stated that the occurrence was due to the enmity between the petitioner and the second respondent sustaining for more than four years. Since the petitioner and the de facto complainant often meet in the Police Station and in the Court in Theni. It is further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

submitted that it is improbable that the petitioner would have done something to cause injury as alleged in the complaint.

5. None of the ground raised by the petitioner can be considered as valid and legal to quash the charge sheet which was taken on file after thorough investigation, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the second respondent. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly held that the probability of the incident or offence is not a ground in which the First Information Report or Charge Sheet can be quashed. The complaint as well as the charge sheet clearly disclose cognizable offences with reasonable certainty. Merely on the basis of the some discrepancy in the statements and the probabilities of the case alleged against the petitioner, this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings, particularly, when the Charge Sheet has been filed after investigation.

6. Having regard to the settled law on this, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the proceedings or have reasons to believe that the trial of the criminal case will be an abuse of process of law.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner. Since the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be genuine in this case, as the petitioner is also a practising Advocate, the appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with unless and until his appearance is specifically required by an order of court.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RECORD) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Palanichettypatti Police Station, Theni District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/s. P.MUTHU VIJAYA PANDIAN Advocate in SR. No. 83449 TRP JS/GT/SAR.1/3.11.2017/2P-5C CRL.O.P.(MD)No.13960 of 2017 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.9367 and 9368 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20.10.2017