Crl.RC.No.1055 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

Crl.RC.No.1055 of 2023

&

Crl.MP. Nos.8440 & 8441of 2023

1. N. Aravindharaj @ Aravind

2. N. Naveen @ Navisan

...Petitioners

vs.

1. The Inspector of Police

Marakanam Police Station

Villupuram District.

Crime No.79 of 2022

2. Mohan Doss

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with

401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the order dated

06.08.2022. passed in C.M.P. No.2840 of 2022 in PRC No.24 of 2022

by the Judicial Magistrate II, Tindivanam.

For Petitioners

: Mr.S. Karthikeyan

For R1

: Mr. J. Subbiah

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R2

: Mr. R. Sankarasubbu

for Mr.S. Satheesh Kumar

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.RC.No.1055 of 2023

ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order

dated 06.08.2022., passed in C.M.P. No.2840 of 2022 in PRC No.24 of

2022 by the Judicial Magistrate II, Tindivanam.

2. The petitioners are the accused 2 and 3 in PRC No.24 of 2022.

The respondent (Inspector of Police, Marakkanam Police Station)

registered FIR in Crime No.79 /2022 against 8 accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and 307

IPC based on the complaint of one Mohandoss. The police after

concluding the investigation filed a final report against all the accused

except A2 and A3 shown in the FIR. In 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement, the

complainant Mohandoss had mentioned that A2 and A3 though were

present in the scene of offence, neither assaulted him nor abused him in

filthy language. Based on this particular statement, A2 and A3 were not

included as accused in the final report.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant filed

Crl.M.P.No.2840/22 protesting the final report. The learned Judicial

Magistrate II, Tindivanam, vide her orders dated 06.08.2022 had made

the following observations:

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.RC.No.1055 of 2023

"On perusal of records available before this Court, it is

revealed that the defacto complainant mentioned A2, A3 in

his statement. Further, A2 Aravindh, A3 Naveen involved in

the offence, is revealed by the confession statement of co-

accused. Considering the above facts, prima facie caseis

made out as against A2, A3 also. Hence, this court is taken

on file the accused along with A2, A3 as PRC."

4. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate II, Tindivanam, the 2nd and 3rd accused in PRC No.24/2022

have filed the present Criminal Revision Petition.

5. Heard Mr.S. Karthikeyan learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Mr. J. Subbiah, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned

counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

6. Mr.S. Karthikeyan learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

contended that though in the statement recorded by the police under

Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. the complainant had clearly stated that the 2^nd and

3rd accused did not commit any offence, the Magistrate had erroneously

included the present revision petitioners as accused 2 and 3 in PRC

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.RC.No.1055 of 2023

No.24 of 2022.

7. Per contra, Mr.Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing

for the complainant/injured had contended that the complainant had

sustained grievous injuries and in his complaint he had clearly stated that

both the accused had assaulted him. However the police, for the reasons

best known to them, had not included these two accused in the final

report filed by them.

8. At the outset it may be pointed out that the FIR was given by the

complainant Mohan Doss on the same date of occurance i.e. on

20.02.2022. There is no delay