The duty of the Magistrate is to discharge the accused when no prima facie evidence exists against them, as established by previous judgments.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 22.10.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 09.01.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1468 of 2024 and CRL M.P.No.12331 of 2024 Ramesh ... Petitioner / Accused Vs.

The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Uddanapalli Police, Crime No.258 of 2020 ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksa Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order passed by the Additional Session Court at Krishnagiri in CMP.2415 of 2024 in S.C.No.23 of 2023, dated 04.07.2024 and discharge the petitioner from the provisions of the aforesaid charge sheet.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugesh For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Addl.Public Prosecutor,

O R D E R

Challenging the order dated 04.07.2024, in C.M.P.No.2415/2024 in S.C.No.23/2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Krishnagiri, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120B, 149, 114, 109 and 201 of IPC., the present Revision is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2020 at about

6.45 p.m., due to previous enmity, the accused persons Venkataraj/A- 1, Harish/A-2, Muniraj/A-3, Srinivasan/A-4 and Mathesh/A-5 came to house of the deceased abused him in filthy languages, assaulted him with Aruval and wooden log, other deadly weapons and caused his death. Hence the complaint.

3. Mr.R.Murugesh, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/ A7 would submit that the Petitioner is an undergraduate and at the relevant time of occurrence, the petitioner was working as a freelancer in the area of Network Marketing for Organisation which included QNET. His job responsibilities was selling various product of the organisations through online. The Petitioner make calls to the customers for his business. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner / A7 was not named in the FIR. The petitioner is arrayed based on the confession of the co-accused. The Redmi Phone is shown as recovery from the petitioner on his arrest on 17.05.2020, four days after the occurrence, but the Redmi phone has been shown as recovered from Muniraj/A3 and another Redmi phone from Madesh/A5, as per Form 95 and the charge sheet. Hence, no recovery from the Petitioner/A7. Further, 17.05.2020 is during Corono Period restrictions and no one was allowed to move freely. Thus, the case projected against the petitioner is with contradictions and prove the petitioner is falsely implicated. No specific overt act attributed against the petitioner and in the material placed by the prosecution before the trial Court did not indict the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. Hence, the petitioner filed a Petition in C.M.P.No.2415 of 2025 in S.C.No.23 of 2023, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, under Section 239 Cr.P.C., r/w Sections 227, Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C., and under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to discharge the Petitioner/A7. The said Petition was dismissed on 04.07.2024. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1582, wherein it has been held as follows:-

“..... protection against vexatious and unwanted prosecution and from being unnecessarily dragged through a trial by melting a criminal proceeding into oblivion, either through quashing a FIR/Complaint or by allowing an appeal against an order rejecting discharge or by any other legally permissible route, as the circumstances may be, in the deserving case, is a duty cast on the High Courts.”

4. The learned counsel further relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2010 SCC (Cri) 1371 , for the point that “If there is