Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 1496
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
Dr. Mariappan
Versus
State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.3 of 2011 & M.P.(MD). No.1 of 2011
Decided On : 17-03-2011
For the Petitioner:G. Marimuthu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Rajendran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
The judgment establishes that to convict a person with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C, it is necessary to establish that the accused had a pre-arranged plan and acted in concert with others in furtherance of a common intention.
Headnote:
Cheating - Alleged commission of offences under Sections 420 r/w 511 and Section 34 of I.P.C - Sections 120 r/w 511 and 34 of I.P.C - 239 of Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner is facing prosecution for alleged commission of offences under Sections 420 r/w 511 and Section 34 of I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that the accused connived to cheat the National Insurance Company and obtained compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. The Petitioner filed a Petition for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, stating that he had no involvement in the alleged offences.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the materials relied on by the prosecution did not prima facie disclose the commission of the offence on the part of the Petitioner and therefore, he was entitled to be discharged.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioner was involved in the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 420 r/w 511 and Section 34 of I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court analyzed the evidence and legal provisions, including Sections 34 and 120 r/w 511 of I.P.C, and found that the materials did not substantiate the Petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was allowed, and the Petitioner was discharged of the charges in C.C. No.68 of 2006 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar.
1. The Petitioner is arrayed s Second Accused in C.C. No.68 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and he along with four other Accused are facing prosecution for the alleged commission of he offences under Sections 420 r/w 511 and Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet is that the First Accused viz., Ramkumar lodged a false insurance claim as if he sustained injury on 30.03.2002 and the Police has registered a case on 27.05.2002 against the driver of the vehicle viz., Tractor and Trailer bearing registration Nos.TN-67-S-3386 and TN-67-S-3387 and though the said vehicles have not been involved in the accident and consequently, all of them connived as to cheat the National Insurance Company and obtained compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. In C.C. No.68 of 2006 on the filed of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, the Petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No. 2 filed a Petition for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.M.P. No.4131 of 2007 stating that the First Accused viz., Ramkumar came to his hospital on 07.03.2002 at about 9.00 p.m., stating that he sustained injury while repairing a tractor wheel on 07.03.2002 at 8.30 p.m. and it was found that the First Accused required treatment s an in-patient and accordingly, he was admitted as an in-patient. Subsequently, the First Accused was operated by Dr. Ganesh Raja in the Petitioner’s/A2 hospital on 23.03.2002 and he was in-patient till 21.04.2002 and on the said date, the First Accused was discharged from the hospital with an advice to review after 16 days. However, the First Accused did not turn up for further treatment. It is further stated in the said Petition that the First Accused after discharge from the Petitioner’s hospital, seeks to have got treatment from the Third Accused viz., Dr. Mathialagan and he was admitted in his hospital as an in-patient from 22.05.2002 to 26.05.2002 and on the said date, he was discharged from the hospital. Thereafter, the F.I.R. in Crime No. 106 of 2002 on the filed of Dhalavaipuram Police Station was lodged on 27.05.2002 and on the basis of the Medical memo issued by the Third Accused, the First Accused was referred to Government Hospital at Rajapalayam. Much time later the First Accused filed M.CO.P. No.63 of 2005 on the filed of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs.
3. It is the specific case of the Petitioner/A2 that he is nothing to do with the alleged commission of the offences and even as per the documents, he has not shared common intention with the other Accused and in fact he has been examined as R.W.2 on behalf of the National Insurance Company in M.C.O.P. No.63 of 2005, wherein he has marked the copies of treatment summary as Ex.R1. Hence, the Revision Petitioner/A2 prayed for discharge. The said Application was opposed by the prosecution by filing a Counter stating that as a result of the acts placed by all the Accused, the national Insurance Company got cheated and therefore, they are rightly charge sheeted for the commission of the offences under Sections 120 r/w 511 and 34 of I.P.C. and for the reasons, the prosecution prayed for dismissal of the Petition.
4. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar vide order dated 26.11.2010 has dismissed the Crl.M.P. No.4131 of 2007 filed by the Petitioner for discharge stating among other things that immediately after the admission of Accused No.1 in the hospital of the Petitioner/A2, he did not inform the said fact to the Police Officials and therefore, there is a prima facie case made out against the Petitioner/A2 for proceeding further and challenging the vires of the same, the present Revision is filed.
5. Heard the submission of Mr. G. Marimuthu, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P. Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and this Court also perused the materials available on record in the form of typed set of
