Advocates:
['M/S R SASIKUMAR', '', 'A G CHIDAMBARAM', 'N VIDHYA', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', '', 'NOITCE SENT SERVICE AWAITED', 'PRIVATE NOTICE SERVED ON R', 'R S T PONSUBBIAH CHENNAI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.02.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

Crl.O.P.No.1218 of 2016 and

Crl.M.P.Nos.544 & 545 of 2016

1. Ramakrishnan

2. Murugan

3. Saravanan

... Petitioners

Vs.

1. State rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

E-8, Kelambakkam Police Station,

Kancheepuram District.

2. S.T.Ponsubbaiah

... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to the

proceedings pending in P.R.C.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Chengalpet, and quash the

same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Md.Riyaz

For Respondents : Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1

No Appearance for R2

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records

pertaining to the proceedings pending in P.R.C.No.36 of 2011, on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Chengalpet, and

to quash the same.

2

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as A2 to A4 in

the impugned proceedings. The case of the prosecution is that on

05.02.2011 at about 2.00 p.m., the first accused, at the

instigation of the petitioners herein, kidnapped the victim

minor girl aged about 17 years, and thereby have committed

offences under Sections 366, 376, r/w 109 of I.P.C.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3

The learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying on

the statements under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. of the victim

girl, submitted that the victim had voluntarily called the first

accused on 05.02.2011 at about 2.00 hours to come to her house

and from there they had left the house and reached the Bus

Stand, wherein the petitioners herein were present. Apart from

this statement, there are no other overt acts attributed by any

of the witnesses to implicate the petitioners herein for having

committed offences, either under Section 366 or 109 of I.P.C.

and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners herein

are liable to be quashed.

4

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on the

other hand, by relying on the statement of victim girl,

submitted that these petitioners, who were present at the Bus

Stand, had sent the victim girl as well as the first accused

from that place, asking them to live happily. Further by relying

on the statement of witness, who was a driver of the victim

girl, submitted that he had seen the victim girl and the first

accused accompanied by the petitioners herein and therefore

submitted that the offences under Sections 366 and 109 of I.P.C

are clearly made out as against the petitioners herein.

5

I have carefully considered the rival submissions made

on either side and perused the materials placed before the Court.

6

It is not in dispute that the victim girl was aged

about 17 years at the time of occurrence. None of the witnesses

have spoken anything about the petitioners herein, apart from

the limited overt acts attributed by the learned Government

Advocate (Crl.Side). As such what could be derived from the

statements of these witnesses is that these petitioners were

present only at the Bus Stand from where the first accused and

the victim girl had eloped. It is not the case of the

prosecution that these petitioners had aided the first accused

and helped him from taking the victim girl from her lawful

guardianship. It is also not the case of the prosecution that

these petitioners had come at an earlier point of time abetting

the first accused to commit any of the offence either under

Section 366 or 376 of I.P.C. A mere act of being present in the

Bus Stand, while the first accused and the victim girl had

eloped may not be sufficient to constitute an offence of having

committed kidnapping or for an offence under Section 109 of

I.P.C.

7

The learned counsel for the petitioners b