Chandran vs Nagan

Pratap Singh, J.—Accused No. 6 in C.C. No. 65/90 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ponneri, has filed this petition under S. 482

Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the same.

The respondent has filed a private complaint against 13 accused out of whom the petitioner is the 6th accused. The allegations in it are briefly as

follows:- There was prior misunderstanding between the members of the families of the complainant and accused Murugesan. On 25.3.1987, at about 4 p.m., while the complain was returning to his house, A1 waylaid the complainant and abused him in filthy language. The complainant questioned A1 and at the same time all other accuse came from different directions and joined with A1, with an intention to commit offence against the complainant and in pursuance of the same, all of them who were armed with various weapons, started surrounding the complainant to attack and injure him. A1 and All were armed with a crowbar and knife respectively. A3 was in possession of Kuthusi. All other accused were found with stones. The complainant apprehended danger to his life and took to his heels. At that time Al, A3 and All threw their weapons aiming at the complainant and those weapons hit him on his back. All other accused throw stones indiscriminately aiming at the complainant. Some of them hit him on his legs. The complainant rushed to his house and bolted the outer door from inside. The accused continued to throw stones at the house.

Witnesses and others rusted to the help of the complainant's family. Witnesses Mukundan and Gopal also sustained injuries.

After the accused left the scene, the complainant went to Minjur Police Station and reported the matter. The accused party also lodged a

complaint which is false, against the complainant and others. Their complaint was registered in Crime No. 59/87 under S. 307, IPC, and other

offences. The complaint given by this complainant was registered in Crime No. 60/87 and the police have referred the case. Hence the complaint.

Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the F.I.R. given by the complainant namely the

respondent herein was on 26.3.1987 against 11 persons and out of whom the petitioner herein was not shown as an accused. But now after considerable delay on 26.2.1970 this private complaint was filed impleading the petitioner as 6th accused with vague allegations and on that score it is liable to be quashed.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. He relied upon the decision in Manikandan and Ors. v. Jayaraman

(1987 L.W.Crl 385), On similar facts, Padmini Jesudurai, J. had quashed the proceedings as against the persons whose name do not find a place in the F.I.R. In para 4 the learned Judge has stated as follows:

A perusal of the complaint given by the respondent to the police shows that the names of the petitioners are not mentioned therein. It is not even stated that apart from 18 persons, who are now A1 to A18 in the present private complaint, anyone else took part in the occurrence. In fact, the first petitioner is shown as one of the persons who sustained injuries. On the contrary in the private complaint that had been given nearly five months after the above police complaint the petitioners have been shown as having participated in the incident. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that allegations against the petitioners are vague is not without force.

Ultimately, the learned Judge and quashed the proceedings regarding them. In Chandrasekhara Pandian v. Muthukaruppa Thevar (1983 M.L.J.

Cri 554 , M.N. Moorthy, J. has taken a similar view and had acquitted the persons whose names were later included in the private complaint. In that case private complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate had directly investigation by the police under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after investigation they submitted a charge sheet as a mistake of fact. That was accepted by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, a private complaint was filed in which four new persons were added as accused, whose names do not find a place in the original complaint. In those circumstances, the second complaint against those newly added persons were quashed. The ratio of these two rulings applies to the facts of this case. Hence, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 65/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ponneri, regarding this petitioner who is accused No. 6 before him, shall stand quashed.