Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15591 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 22.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15591 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P(MD)No.7627 of 2020

1.Micheal Vijila @ Vijila

2.Antony Jeyakumar

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

Vs.

1.

State represented by,

The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Asaripallam Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

(In Crime No.103 of 2019).

... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

2.Makesh @ Mahesh

... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.340

of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Nagercoil and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners

are concerned.

For Petitioners

: Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan

For R – 1

: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been to quash the charge

sheet in C.C.No.340 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, insofar as the petitioners are

concerned.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.2019, while the

first petitioner travelled in her two-wheeler bearing Registration

No.TN-02-BL-0527 without wearing helmet, the second respondent

stopped her and questioned the same, for which, the first petitioner

did not show any document of the vehicle and stated that she is a

practising Advocate and flea from the scene of occurrence.

Thereafter, the first petitioner came along with her husband, namely

the second petitioner in a four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-

02-BP-6039 and abused the second respondent with filthy language by

showing the car that they are practising Advocates. Hence, the

second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent. On

the basis of the complaint, the first respondent registered the

1/5

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15591 of 2020

F.I.R in Crime No.103 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294

(b), 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and the same has been altered into

Sections 129 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 294(b),

353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. The first respondent filed a final report

and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.340

of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Nagercoil.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the first respondent filed the final report by citing 14

witnesses to substantiate the charges for the offences under

Sections 129 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 294(b),

353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. All the witnesses are police officials

along with four auto rickshaw persons. Even according to the

prosecution, the provisions related to Sections 294(b) and 506(ii)

of I.P.C were not made, since there is no witness stated that the

allegation was made in front of them. Therefore, the entire case of

the prosecution is false, baseless and the petitioners are being law

holder have been attracted into this criminal proceedings.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

first respondent.

5.On a perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161(3)

of Cr.P.C and the charge-sheet filed as against the petitioners

revealed that they were charged for the offences under Sections 294

(b), 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and also under Sections 129 and 177 of

the Motor Vehicles Act

6.Insofar as the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C is

concerned, the essential ingredients to attract the offence under

Section 353 of I.P.C are that the person accused of the said charge

should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with

intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his

duty as public servant. On a perusal