Sankar vs The State

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 60 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Vellore, for offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 352 I.P.C. Seeking to quash the same, the petitioners are before this Court with this petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

The facts of the case would be as follows:-

On the complaint of one Mrs. Dharani W/o Mathi, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 311/2012 on 20.09.2012 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 I.P.C. According to the FIR in the said case, there was a dispute regarding the title and possession of the land in question between the deceased Mathi and the accused party. All the accused belong to one single family and they are relatives. The FIR further reveals that at about 10.30 am, the deceased Mathi and his family members including the de facto complainant had gone to the said land where, they found the accused Shankar and Santhosh were trying to encroach upon the said property. The deceased attempted to prevent them. At that time, it is stated that the accused Shankar attacked the deceased Mathi with a stick and the accused Santhosh attacked the deceased with hands. The other accused Thulasi Raman attacked the de facto complainant with stone. Further, the accused Santhosh attacked the deceased with spade handle on his nose. The villagers came there and separated them. But, the accused Santhosh spoke to his brother Karunakaran over phone and called him to come to the spot immediately. The accused Karunakaran reached the place of occurrence at about 11.15 am and thereafter, at the instigation of the other accused, the accused Karunakaran attacked the deceased Mathi with crow bar. Mathi was taken to the hospital but, he was declared dead on his way to hospital. With these allegations, the FIR was registered.

During the course of investigation, it was found that these accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 I.P.C. Therefore, a final report was filed by the respondent police in the said case for offence under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 I.P.C., and on which, cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate in P.R.C. No. 8/2013. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C. No. 137/2013. Based on the very same investigation and based on the very same FIR, yet another final report has been filed before the same Magistrate for offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 352 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the said police report in C.C. No. 60/2013. It is this case, the petitioners/accused want to quash.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the occurrence was one and the same; FIR was one and the same; investigation was one and the same but, there are two final reports filed by the respondent police and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on both the final reports. This according to the learned counsel is illegal.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would oppose this petition. According to him, in respect of the occurrence took place on 20.09.2012 at about 10.30 am, the final report was filed in C.C. No. 60/2013 and in respect of occurrence which took place on the same day at 11.15 am, the final report was filed in S.C. No. 137/2013.

I have considered the above submissions.

A perusal of the record would reveal that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there was one single occurrence. Though, the occurrence commenced on 20.09.2012 at 10.30 am, it was ended up on the same day at 11.15 am. It was one single occurrence. Further, the final report in S.C. No. 137/2013 covers the whole occurrence commencing from 10.30 am to 11.15 am. Therefore, filing of two final reports in my considered opinion, is not only unnecessary but also illegal. In such view of the matter, the present case in C.C. No. 60/2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No., 3 Vellore deserves to be quashed. But, at the same time, it is needs to be clarified that quashing of this case in C.C. No. 60/2013 will not be construed as though this Court has given clean chit to the petitioners/accused in respect of the entire offence. Further, it is for the learned Sessions Judge who is going to try the case in S.C. No. 137/2013 to frame charges, comprehensively, in respect of the entire occurrence which occurred on 20.09.2012 between 10.30 am and 11.15 am i.e., till the time of the death of the deceased.

With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in C.C. No. 60/2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Vellore is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.