A.Gurusamy v. The Inspector of Police

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned Charge sheet in P.R.C.No.47 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai.

¶2The accused No.8 in the FIR in Crime No.133 of 2006, on the file of the respondent police, filed this petition to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.47 of 2014

¶3On 30.10.2006, at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner and other 12 accused persons, entered into the Vilangulam Panchayat Union, Elementary School, wherein, the ward election was conducted and removed the camera and other equipments from the custody of the election officers and caused damages to the tune of Rs.1000/-. Therefore, the election officer made a complaint before the respondent police and the same was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 353, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 136 (B) (C) Representative of People Act and also under Section 3 of PPDL Act.

¶4The investigating agency after examining number of witnesses and collecting documents filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai against the 13 accused, including the petitioner. The petitioner herein is shown as an absconding accused. Except the petitioner, remaining accused faced the trial in S.C.No.113 of 2014 and they were convicted by the judgment dated 24.05.2016. As against the same, they filed the appeal in Crl.A.No.32 of 2016 and the same was allowed by judgment dated 18.06.2018. On the basis of the same, now, the petitioner has filed the present petition to quash the proceedings.

¶5The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against all the accused is inseparable and the allegation is that the accused persons unlawfully entered into the election booth and caused damages to the equipment. In the said circumstances, the learned trial Judge has categorically given a finding that there was no evidence for the overtact attributed against any one of the accused. Even the witnesses were unable to identify the accused. On the basis of the said finding, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Hence, the learned Senior counsel by placing reliance on the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.

(MD).No.17653 of 2017 and seeks quashment of the proceeding in P.R.C.No.47 of 2014 against the petitioner.

¶6The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions, submitted that it is an admitted fact that the appeal is in favour of the remaining accused, but the same was not a ground to quash the proceeding against the petitioner. Considering his conduct of absconding, he opposed quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner. He would further submitted that there is a specific averment in 161 statement and hence, he seeks for dismissal of this case.

¶7The Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶8This Court perused the judgment in C.A.No.32 of 2016. Upon perusal of the judgment, none of the witnesses deposed before the Court any specific overtact against any individual accused.

9.The accused and the other persons were said to have illegally trespassed into the polling booth and caused damages and assaulted the witnesses. In this aspect, the learned trial Judge has rendered the following findings:

21.NkYk; rk;gt ehspy; rk;gt Neuj;jpy; m.rh.1 gzpGhpe;J te;jjhf nrhy;yg;gLk; thf;Fr;rhtbapy; gzpGhpe;J te;j m.rh.8 jdJ Kjy; tprhuiz rhl;rpaj;jpd; NghJ M[h; vjphpfs; m.rh.1 m.rh.8 gzpGupe;J te;jjhf nrhy;yg;gLk; thf;Fr;rhtbapy; mj;JkPwp Eioe;J mq;fpUe;j Nrh; Nlgpis cilj;J Nrjg;gLj;jpajhfNth m.rh.10 itj;jpUe;j tPbNah Nfkpuhit cilj;J Nrjg;gLj;jpajhfNth Fwpg;gpl;L rhl;rpak; mspj;jjhf njhpatpy;iy. rk;gt rhl;rpgshf m.rh.1 m.rh.8 m.rh.10 m.rh.11 rhl;rpfs; jq;fsJ Kjy; tprhuiz rhl;rpaj;jpd; NghJ ve;j vjphp vijf; nfhz;L tPbNah Nfkuhit jhf;fp

Nrjg;gLj;jpajhfNth

ve;j

vjphp thf;Fr;rPl;il fpopj;J vwpe;jjhfNth ve;j vjphp Nrh; Nlgpis cilj;J Nrjg;gLj;jpajhfNth Fwpg;gpl;l rhl;rpak; mspf;fhj epiyapy; M[h; vjphpfs; jhd; rk;gt ehspy; rk;gt Neuj;jpy; m.rh.1 kw;Wk; m.eh. 8 rhl;rpfs; gzpGhpe;J te;jjhf nrhy;yg;gLk; thf;Fr; rhtbapy; mj;JkPwp Eioe;J m.rh.1 kw;Wk; m.rh.8 rhl;rpfis gzp nra;a tplhky; jLj;J mq;F itf;fg;gl;bUe;j Xl;Lr; rPl;il fpopj;J Nrjg;gLj;jp thf;Fg;gjpit elj;j tplhky; ,ilA+W nra;jjhf $Wk; Fw;wr;rhl;L Vw;Fk;gbahf ,y;iy vd;W jhd; ,k;kd;wk; fUJfpwJ.

10.In view of the above finding, the judgment relied by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant is applicable to the present case. This Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17653 of 2017 has held as follows:

¶8It is very clear from the above judgments that, where the evidence of all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently based on the very same evidence. No useful purpose would be served by making the petitioner undergo the ordeal of trial.

11.In view of the above law laid down by this Court and also by the specific finding of the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.32 of 2016, in acquitting the co-accused, there is no separable evidence available against the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings.

¶12Therefore, the ratio relied upon by the learned Senior counsel is applicable to the present case and Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the same. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.

30.10.2023 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No sbn To

1.The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(Mi).No.14099oofo2020 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,oJ. sbn Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14099oofo2020 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.6491o&o6493oofo2020

30.10.2023 Pageo8oofo8

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :30.10.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.6491 & 6493 of 2020 A.Gurusamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.589 of 2006) 2.Ilanchooriyan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in P.R.C.No.47 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban Senior Counsel for M/s.APN Law Associates For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1