The court ruled that a Magistrate may take cognizance of charges against multiple individuals based on differing offenses but emphasized the need for connecting evidence to substantiate claims of joint culpability during trial.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying this Court to call for the records in PRC No.149 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Madurai, which is renumbered as S.C. No.223 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.)

1. The whole matrix of the case, as could be ascertained from the facts, which have been placed before this Court by the respective parties, articulate a question of seminal importance with regard to the power of the court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence and issue process for committal of the case and, therefore, this Court, in the interest of justice was inclined to list the matter for further hearing, though an order was initially dictated but when the matter was typed and placed for signature, the intricacies of the issue involved in the present case having come to the attention of this Court, which were not properly addressed when the Court initially dictated the order, this Court had listed the matter and appointed Mr. Palanivel Rajan, Sr. Counsel and Mr. R.Anand, learned counsel as Amicus to assist this Court with regard to the issue involved and also requested all the other members of the Bar to extend their expertise on the issue so as to render complete justice.

2. Before embarking upon detailing the questions, which had cropped up for consideration of this Court in the present case, the sequence of events leading to the filing of the present petition requires to be set forth.

3. The present petition is filed seeking quashment of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, in PRC No.149 of 2009, in and by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, upon taking cognizance of the final report, had altered the offence from one u/s 304 (2) IPC to an offence u/s 302 IPC, and upon committal, the same has been taken on board in S.C. No.223 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.

4. The facts in the present case are that the petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in Crime No.3 of 2017 on the file of the 4th respondent. The genesis of the said complaint was the missing of his daughter, a 3 ½ year old child, who was found missing when playing in front of his house.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after frantic search throughout the night of 8.7.2008, the body of the girl child was found by the brother of the defacto complainant and one Malaichamy in the Vannarmadaicanal with injuries on her head and neck and that her ear rings, anklets were missing. Therefore, a complaint was lodged by the complainant with Othakadai Police Station, which was registered in Crime No.266 of 2008 u/s 174 Cr.P.C.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that after two months, on the basis of the statement of one Alagammal to the effect that the neighbour of the petitioner, also named Ravi, had kidnapped the child and murdered her by hitting her head on the rocks for the purpose of giving human sacrifice and had thrown the ear rings and anklets in the nearby canal, the said Ravi was arrested. The petitioner, not being satisfied with the said investigation, on the