AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.T. Selvam, J.—The petitioner, seeks quash of proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 57 of 2006, on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pondicherry.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) for the respondents.
The second respondent/complainant had preferred a complaint informing that there was a civil dispute between the complainant and the accused
and that pursuant to an order of Civil Court to note down the physical features of the property over which the dispute arose, the Advocate
Commissioner had visited the place on 03.09.2005 and while the commissioner was about to commence his work, the accused had abused,
threatened as also caused injury to the second respondent and her husband. Both the respondent and her husband had taken treatment and then,
have preferred the complaint on 26.10.2005. The case has been registered for offences under Sections 294, 324 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. The first
respondent police had not taken any action on the complaint and hence, the second respondent moved this Court by way of Crl.O.P. No. 27352
of 2005 and by order dated 06.10.2005, this Court had directed the registration of the case under investigation and filing of final report thereupon.
Pursuant to such order, the first respondent had registered the case in Crime No. 362 of 2005 proceeded with investigation and filed the final
report on 28.12.2005 informing the commission of offence under Sections 294, 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. as against the petitioner and his brother. In
support of the present quash petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that regarding the same occurrence, a case was registered
by the first respondent in Crime No. 295 of 2005 on the very date of the occurrence, i.e., 03.09.2005. In such case, an offence u/s 160 I.P.C.
affray had been registered against both the parties. Again, after the completion of investigation, charge sheet had been filed on 21.11.2005 for such
offence. The contention is that there cannot be two F.I.R.''s and two charge sheets in respect of one and the same occurrence.
The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the second respondent and her husband who suffered severe injuries at the hands of
the accused, had preferred the complaint after availing treatment at hospital. In the meanwhile, the accused party had influenced the first
respondent to register an F.I.R. for an offence of affray, so as to avoid the clutches of law. It is owing thereto that the respondent police registered
a crime u/s 160 I.P.C. and the learned Counsel informs that while the second respondent is challenging the charge sheet filed in such case, the
petitioner and his brother have pleaded guilty and walked away, after paying a fine. The learned Counsel submits that in such circumstances, it
would be highly improper and would be against ends of justice to exercise powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.
Considering the rival submissions and on perusing the materials on record, particularly the order of this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 27352 of 2005,
this Court finds that it is not a fit case for exercise of its inherent powers. While passing the order in Crl.O.P. No. 27352 of 2005, this Court was
aware that a case had been registered for offence u/s 160 I.P.C. Even so, this Court felt it appropriate to order registration of a case and filing of
charge sheet on the complaint of the second respondent. The date of occurrence has been wrongly stated in the charge sheet as 25.10.2005
instead of 03.09.2005. This will not take away the merits of the prosecution case as from a reading of the F.I.R. it is clear that the mention of a
wrong date is apparently an error.
For the above reasons, this criminal original petition shall stand dismissed and consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.