Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 4848
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL, J
Rajamani – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL.OP(MD). No.22258 of 2022
For Petitioners: Mr.N.Ananda Kumar, For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor, For R2 : Mr.M.Sankar
The court upheld the validity of the charge sheet against the petitioners, finding sufficient evidence to proceed with the case despite their claims of false accusations.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 355 - Criminal Original Petition filed to quash charge sheet in C.C.No.403 of 2022 - Allegations of assault and abusive language by petitioners against defacto complainant and his family - Investigation concluded sufficient evidence exists against petitioners - Court found no merit in petitioners' claims of false accusation and abuse of process. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of charge sheet - The court emphasized that the materials collected by the investigation agency were adequate to proceed with the case against the petitioners. (Paras 10-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, husband and wife, were accused of assaulting the defacto complainant and his wife following a dispute over the petitioners' behavior near a construction site. The defacto complainant alleged that the petitioners used abusive language and caused injuries.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation revealed sufficient evidence to proceed with the case against the petitioners.
Issues: The main issues included whether the allegations against the petitioners were false and if the charge sheet should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence collected during the investigation was sufficient to establish a case against the petitioners, rejecting their claims of false accusations.
Result: Criminal Original Petition dismissed.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.403 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar and quash the same as illegal in respect of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.403 of 2022 on the file the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar.
3. The petitioners are husband and wife. The case of the prosecution is that one Thangaraj/Defacto Complainant, who is the second respondent herein, gave a complaint on 11.07.2022 to the first respondent-police stating that he is residing along with his family members at Anna Nagar East, Mallaginar, Virudhunagar District. His daughter/Karthika is also living with the defacto complainant since her husband is in abroad. The defacto complainant's son is working in Indian Army. The defacto complainant was constructing a house for his daughter/Karthika at Anna Nagar. While so, on 11.07.2022 at about 5.45 a.m., the defacto complainant's dogs were barking. On hearing the noise, when he came out, he saw that the second petitioner herein was attending to a natural call near the construction site. The defacto complainant directed the second petitioner to go somewhere else. Due to the said vengeance, on the same day at about 7.00 a.m., the petitioners herein came to the house of the defacto complainant and shouted at the defacto complainant by using filthy and abusive language. The first petitioner herein bit the right hand of the defacto complainant and the father of the first petitioner herein attacked the defacto complainant with an wooden log on his right leg and thereby, caused injury. When the wife of the defacto complainant attempted to pacify them, she was also severely beaten by the second petitioner herein by using broom stick and the parents of the first petitioner also attacked the defacto complainant's wife. Thereafter, the defacto complainant and his wife were admitted in Government Hospital, Virudhunagar and gave a complaint to the respondent-police. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered a case under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 355 of IPC in Crime No.88 of 2022.
4. After investigation, the respondent-police came to a conclusion that the first petitioner's parents did commit any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and his wife. Hence, they deleted the first petitioner's parents in the array of accused.
5. The investigation officer filed a charge sheet against the first petitioner under Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC and against the second petitioner under Sections 323 and 355 of . The charge sheet, which was filed on 04.08.2022, was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar in C.C.No.403 of 2022.
6. The first petitioner also gave a complaint against the defacto complainant and his family members. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered in Crime No.88 of 2022 under Sections 147, 294(b) and 324 of IPC and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 . In these circumstances, the petitioners herein filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.403 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar.
7. Mr.N.Ananda Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, argues that the defacto complainant falsely gave a complaint against the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners herein are victims and the first petitioner gave a complaint against the defacto complainant and his family members. Based on the complaint, an FIR in Crime No.88 of 2022 was registered. He further submits that the eye-witness, Vijayasundram, is not residing in the street where the occurrence happened street and he indeed belongs to another street. He is stock witness of the res
