The petitioner has come up with the instant Criminal original petition by invoking the inherent power this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a plea to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.110 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudachalam.
2. Brief facts required for the disposal of the above criminal original petition is as following that the above charge sheet in C.C.No.110 of 2009 is found to be filed by the 1st respondent, in furtherance of the investigation in respect of the Crime in Cr.No.82 of 2008 u/s 147, 148, 324, 323 and 506 (ii) IPC on the file of the 1st respondent, viz registered upon the complaint of the 2nd respondent dated 22.06.2008.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the above charge sheet is liable to be quashed on the ground of abuse of process of law, since she had not involved in any of the offence as alleged in the charge sheet and in fact the allegation as if 2nd respondent was abused in a filthy language is an afterthought with a view to harass the petitioner with criminal prosecution.
4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that after investigation conducted by the 1st respondent the above FIR in as much as others persons were closed as Mistake of Fact excepting the petitioner and one Venugopal and hence their names were not included in the Charge Sheet.
The above alterations of sections and removal of the names were made, despite of the fact that averments as against the petitioner and others remained one and the same, without overt act. Thus removal and alteration of the charges clearly shows the falsity of the complaint. Even as per the Complaint of the 2nd respondent the alleged offence is said to have been taken place in the 2nd respondent’s shop, which is a private place and hence offence under Section 294 will not be made out, as it require that the alleged offence should have taken place in a Public Place.
5. I heard Mr.C.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and perused the records.
6. The record discloses that the 2nd respondent had lodged the above complaint dated 22.06.2008 as against the petitioner and few others alleging that on 19.06.2008 she was assaulted by the petitioner and others due to a previous enmity in connection with a land dispute.
The said attack is alleged to have been made while the 2nd respondent was at her Fancy Store at Mangalampettai Summaithangi. Wherefore the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent as against 7 persons, including the petitioner herein. Petitioner is found to be arrayed as second accused in the FIR.
7. Pursuant to the investigation conducted by the 1st respondent the above FIR came to be Charge sheeted against two persons namely Venugopal under Section 325 of IPC ( A1) and against this petitioner (A2) under Section 294 of IPC, Whereas having found that the remaining accused persons in the FIR are faultless they were not leveled with any charge.
8. It is further disclosed that in the meantime the first accused Venugopal charged under Section 325 IPC died and the petitioner being the sole survivor is facing the above Criminal Case for charge under Section 294 of IPC. A Report was also called for from the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudachalam with regard to the contention of the petitioner as to the demise of Venugopal (A1). Accordingly the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudachalam has submitted a report dated 07.03.2016 concurring the factum of demise of first accused namely http://www.judis.Vnice.innugopal.
9. In the above factual matrix, on repeated perusal of the allegations made in FIR, this Court is not in a position to trace even a single averment that the 2nd respondent was abused unparliamentarily.
Absolutely there is no allegation to the effect the accused have indulged in any obscene act. The sole averment made in the complaint is that on 19.06.2008 the 2nd respondent was assaulted by the petitioner and others due to a previous enmity in connection with a land dispute. It is further found that in the said circumstance FIR in Crime No.82 of 2008 originally was not registered under Section 294 IPC as against the accused persons.
10. Moreover according to the version of the 2nd respondent the entire episode is said to have been taken place inside her shop and hence in the absence of averment as to the presence of public in her shop, this Court is of the opinion that the offence under Section 294 is not be made out as against the petitioner.
11. More so, though the alleged offence is said to have taken place on 19.06.2008, the complaint on hand is found to be given on 22.06.2008 i.e the 3rd day from the date of alleged occurrence by the 2nd respondent.
It is normal prudence that a person would be able to set forth a clear picture of scene of occurrence after the lapse of three days from the date of occurrence, however in the case on hand certainly there is no averment to the effect that the accused have indulged in any obscene act causing annoyance.
12. For the forgoing reasons, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impugned charge sheet laid against the petitioner in C.C.No.110 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudachalam, stands quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.06.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 20.03.2018 vs Index : Yes Internet : Yes To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vridhachalam.
M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.
vs Crl.O.P No.4811 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 29.06.2017