N.Vaikarai @ Sekar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 18/10/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.17098 of 2023 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.13561 and 13562 of 2023 1.N.Vaikarai (a) Sekar 2.V.Mahendran 3.A.Devadas 4.S.Jebastian 5.K.Shanmugam 6.K.Mugil Eniyan (a) K.Ramalingam 7.A.Bhagath Singh 8.S.Venkatachalam 9.Bhaskar @ Viduthalai Sudar 10.Ravi @ Cheliyan 11.K.Veeramani 12.M.G.Devarasan 13.P.Balu 14.C.Arokiasamy 15.J.Chinnadurai (a) Arokiasamy 16.R.Nagarasan 17.T.Bala Dhandayuthapani 18.K.Kamaraj 19.G.Marimuthu 20.P.Subramaniyan 21.S.Senthil Maran 22.P.Durairaj 23.C.Sebastin 24.T.Poosaimani 25.T.Jothi Basu 26.P.Thiyagalingam 27.R.Raju 28.Mu.Tha.Kavithuvan @ Krishnamurthy 29.R.Elango 30.G.Ramasamy 31.A.Ananthan 32.P.Sankar @ Sankara Vadivel 33.R.Kannan 34.P.Suresh (a) Saravanan 35.G.Rajesh Kumar 36.S.Venkatesh Kumar 37.Senthil Kumar 1/8
38.R.Prabhu (a) Prabhakaran 39.M.Murugavel 40.T.Subramani 41.Sugan 42.A.Kuberan @ Guruparan 43.V.Subramania Siva 44.K.Masilamani 45.S.Arul Amudhan 46.L.Poochandran 47.T.Manikandan 48.G.Ramesh 49.T.Selvam 50,K.Chinnathambi 51.Aadhi Kaliya Perumal 52.R.Karunanidhi 53.P.Chinnadurai @ Chinnaswamy 54.N.Karuppusamy 55.K.Subramanian 56.L.Kumariyanandam 57.P.Ravichandran 58.S.Ravichandran 59.P.Dachana Murthy 60.S.Aruldas 61.P.Ramanujam @ Ramalingam 62.T.Ravi 63.M.Muruganandham 64.K.Arasu (a) Boomirajan 65.D.Ramesh Kumar 66.B.Selvaraj 67.N.Sundaramoorthi 68.A.Muniyayya 69.P.Veerakumar 70.G.Jeevanandham 71.T.Sathish @ Rajendran 72.R.Gopinath 73.A.Manikandan 74.K.Radha 75.C.Prakash 76.G.Murugan 77.M.Ramakrishnan 78.V.Chithirai Selvan 79.P.Elaiyaraja 80.R.Damodharan 81.O.Selvam 82.P.Malar Mannan 83.R.Tamilagan : Petitioners/Accused Persons Vs.
2/8
1.The State through, The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur East Police Station, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.86 of 2011) : R1/Complainant 2.D.Sachidhanandham, The Sub Inspector of Police, Thanjavur South Police Station, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.86 of 2011) : R2/De-facto Complainant PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records connected with the Final Report in PRC No.32 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-1, Thanjavur and to quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Criminal side)
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in PRC No.32 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-1, Thanjavur. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief:- On 09/03/2011 at about 11.00 am in front of the shop called 'Francis Alukas Jewellery', the accused persons numbering about 120 assembled unlawfully without proper permission, raised slogans against the the people belongs 3/8
to Kerala State and demanding closure of the shop belongs to Kerala people. And they also caused damage to the advertisement banner worth about Rs.1,500/- put up in front of the shop. On the basis of the occurrence, a case in Crime No.86 of 2011 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 147, 143, 188 IPC and section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992. After completing the investigation, final report was filed and it was taken cognizance in PRC No.16 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur against A1 to A6. The case against A7 to A120 was split up in PRC No.32 of 2017.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that the parent case in SC No.202 of 2017 was tried by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and the judgment of acquittal was passed, on 31/10/2019; So far as these petitioners are concerned, the case has been split up in PRC No.32 of 2017; The parent case in SC No.202 of 2017 A1 to A6 similarly placed were tried; The benefit of acquittal that was rendered to A1 to A6 may also be extended to these petitioners.
4.Heard both sides.
4/8
5.It is a case of rioting causing damage to the private property worth about Rs.1,500/-.
6.It is not denied that the above said protest/demonstration/rioting took place, on 09/03/2011 at about 11.00 am in front of a shop called 'Fancis Alukas Jewellery' situated near Old Bus Stand Thanjavur. These petitioners belongs to a particular political party. They were against the Kerala State people, since Kerala people conducting business activities in Tamil Nadu. The occurrence cannot be disputed by the petitioners. But at the same time, since, similarly placed accused has been acquitted, according to the petitioners, unless the prosecution come forward with the additional evidence to be let in this case, subjecting them to the committal process and trial may not be proper.
7.For that purpose, they would rely upon the judgment of the trial court namely II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur, passed in SC No.202 of 2017. 8.On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined, 8 documents were marked, apart from 3 material objects. PW1, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW10, who belongs to the 5/8
Police Department gave evidence in favour of the prosecution. Now the question before the trial court is the identity of the accused, who participated in the occurrence. The evidentiary value of PW1, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW10 were discussed in detail and the trial court found that no proper identification of the accused who participated in the occurrence, was established. The employees of the shop, even though cited as witnesses were not examined. Similarly, the private witnesses namely PW2 to PW6 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. They also failed to identify the accused persons, who participated in the occurrence. The other witnesses are only official witnesses. From them also, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. Even though, the occurrence could not be denied, as mentioned above, the identity of the persons was not properly brought on record.
9.Reading of the judgment may also be enured to the benefit of the petitioners. Even during the course of investigation, proper identity of the persons was not taken. When the prosecution proposed to examine the very same witness in this matter also, I find that no purpose is going to be served by subjecting the petitioners to the trial process once again.
6/8
10.Now the law is well settled on that point, I need not extract the observation or decision in this regard. On that account, this criminal original petition is liable to be allowed.
11.In the result, this criminal original petition stands allowed. The impugned final report in PRC No.32 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
18/10/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To, 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur East Police Station, Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.17098 of 2023 18/10/2023 8/8