Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3258
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VADAMALAI, J.
Arumugam and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Tamilnadu, rep. by The Inspector of Police, CBCID - OCU, Tiruchirappalli District. (In Crime No.1 of 2016) and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1177 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.12376 and 12378 of 2024
Decided On : 12-03-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Edin Brough.
For the Respondents:Mr. M. Vaikkam Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.side), Mr. D. Muthukumar.
The court ruled that additional accused cannot be impleaded without prima facie evidence, emphasizing adherence to prior judicial directions.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319(1) - Criminal Revision Case - The second respondent sought to implead additional accused in a pending case, which was allowed by the trial court. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing lack of evidence against them and prior dismissals of similar petitions. The court found no prima facie material against the petitioners and set aside the trial court's order. (Paras 2, 5, 12, 13)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The trial court must consider evidence and prior rulings before allowing amendments to charges. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
The second respondent and his family were attacked by police while complying with bail conditions. After multiple petitions and dismissals, the second respondent sought to add police officers as accused, which was allowed by the trial court.
Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to observe prior rulings and lacked evidence against the petitioners.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the impleadment of additional accused without sufficient evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of prima facie evidence before adding accused, reiterating that the trial court must adhere to prior judicial directions.
Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed; the trial court's order set aside.
ORDER :
(P. VADAMALAI, J.)
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 28.10.2024 passed in Cr.M.P.No.39985 of 2024 in C.C.No.437 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The brief facts of the case :
The second respondent and his family members were accused in six cases registered before the Virukambakkam Police Station. They were granted bail with the condition to sign before the Inspector of Police, Virukambakkan and later, that condition was modified as to sign before the Inspector of Police, Trichy Cantonment Police Station. On 05.11.2014, when the second respondent and his family members went to the Trichy Cantonment Police Station, it was alleged that the Inspector of Police Virkambakkan Police Station, his driver Kannan accompanied by the Sub Inspector of Police and 10 others belong to the Vadapalani Police Station dragged and attacked them. As there was no action taken by the police, the second respondent moved with Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13947 of 2015 before this Court and as per the order passed by this Court, the case in Crime No.788 of 2015 U/s.147, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC was registered by the Trichy Cantonment Police and then transferred to CBCID as per order, dated 18.10.2016 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.904 of 2016. The CBCID registered the case in Crime No.1 of 2016 U/s.147, 341, 294(b), 323 & 506(1) IPC and after investigation laid the final report on 03.08.2018 before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy, by referring the complaint as ‘mistake of fact’. On receipt of the said final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy issued notice to the defacto complaint/2nd respondent, who filed an objection and it was taken as Crl.M.P.No.6021 of 2018. After consideration, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy passed the order, dated 01.04.2021 thereby, took cognizance as C.C.No.437 of 2021 U/s.294(b), 323, 354, 506(1) r/w 34 of IPC and U/s.4 of TNWH Act against Accused Nos.1 to 3 alone leaving other accused as name not mentioned and the case in C.C.No.437 of 2021 is pending.
2. At this stage, the second respondent has filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.39985 of 2024 in C.C.No.437 of 2021 U/s.319(1) of Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI Court, Trichy to implead (1) Mr.Arumugam (Head Constable - 24220) (2) Mr.Anand Jayakumar (Police Constable - 32414) and (3) Mr.Karuppasamy Pandian (PC - 4628) (revision petitioners herein) as accused and the said petition was allowed on 28.10.2024.
3. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioners have come forward with this present criminal revision case.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent, and the counsel for the second respondent and perused the records in this Criminal Revision Case.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has submitted that the name of the petitioners were not specifically mentioned by the second respondent. The second respondent has already filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.5573 of 2021 seeking the very same prayer and the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Trichy on 07.09.2021. The second respondent has not produced any material in that petition. Now he has falsely stated that he came to know from the final report about the revision petitioners and filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.39985 of 2024 after ten years of the alleged occurrence which took place on 05.11.2014. The learned counsel further vehemently argued that the second respondent has already filed Crl.R.C(MD)No.197 of 2023 against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.5573 of 2021 and the said Crl.R.C(MD)No.197 of 2023 was also dismissed with liberty to file the petition after examination of occurrence witnesses. None of the occurrence witnesses deposed the name of the petitioners in their evidence. The second respondent suppressed those facts. The learned Judicial Mag
