BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.01.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P(MD)No.18779 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.12629 of 2022 1. Jothi @ Vijayajothi 2. Seena 3. Rasiya 4. Singam 5. Manavalan ... Petitioners Vs 1. The Inspector of Police, Gudalur North Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.61/2022). 2. Aravind ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Sections 439 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in S.C.No. 65/2022 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District and Quash the Charge Sheet as against the Petitioners herein. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioners : Mr.Ilayaraja R, For R1 :Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : No Appearance O R D E R This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings pending in S.C.No. 65 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the second petitioner are husband and wife. They were blessed with two male children. There was a matrimonial dispute between the parties. On 01.03.2022 at about 21.00 Hours, A1 and A2, who are none other than the brother and father of the second petitioner entered into the house of the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and attacked him with aruval and threatened with dire consequences. The other accused persons were also present in the scene of occurrence and all of them joined https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis together as an unlawful assembly. Based on the compliant given by the second respondent, the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.61 of 2022. On completion of investigation, the police report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam for the offence under Sections 294(b), 452, 323, 307, 147, 148, 342 and 326 of IPC as against seven accused persons and the court below took cognizance of the offence and issued process. 3.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police. The second respondent has been served with notice and the name has also been printed in the cause list, However, there is no appearance for the second respondent either in person or through Counsel. 4.The main ground that was taken on the side of the petitioners is that neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C from L.W.1 and L.W.2, there was any mention about the presence of the petitioners nor any overt act has been attributed against the petitioners. Hence it was contended that the petitioners have been roped in this case without any material. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5.This Court carefully went through the FIR which was the earliest document available after the incident took place. On going through the same, it is seen that the presence of A1 and A2 alone has been mentioned in the FIR and the specific overt act has been attributed only as against A1 and A2. In fact, when the FIR was registered, it was registered only for the offence under Sections 294(b), 452, 322, 324 and 307 of IPC. 6.This Court also carefully went through the Section 161 statement that was recorded from L.W.1 and L.W.2. They are the injured witnesses in this case. They specifically talk about the presence of A1 and A2 and the overt act attributed against both these accused persons. They do not whisper about the presence of the other accused persons and they do not talk about any overt act that is attributable against the petitioners. 7.The prosecution has subsequently developed the case as if the petitioners were also present in the scene of occurrence and thereby, they have been roped in on the ground that there was an unlawful assembly and they came along with A1 and A2 with a common object and hence the offence committed by A1 and A2 has also been attributed as against the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis other accused persons. 8.In the considered view of this Court, the earliest version that is available after the incident and the earliest statement that was recorded from L.W1 and L.W.2 only talks about the presence of A1 and A2. In fact, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) to verify as to whether there are any other records to show that the petitioners were also involved in this case. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on verifying the case diary found that there is a CCTV footage available which has been recorded in a compact disk. However this electronic evidence does not form part of the police report. He further submitted that even as per the CCTV footage, there is no specific overt act attributable against the petitioners. Therefore, even if the electric evidence is marked, nothing turns out against the petitioners. 9.In view of the above, the continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners will only result in abuse of process of law and the same requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10.In the result, the proceedings in S.C.No. 65 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11.There shall be a direction to the Special Court, Uthamapalayam to proceed further with the case in S.C.No. 65 of 2022 as against A1 and A2 and complete the same, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24.01.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR To 1.The Sub Ordinate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Gudalur North Police Station, Theni District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. LR Crl.O.P(MD)No.18779 of 2022 24.01.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis