G. Jeya Singh and C. Muthaiah vs State and Aavudaiammal

R. Mala, J.—The Petitioners/A.1 and A.2, have come forward with this Crl.O.P. to call for the records in C.C. No. 74 of 2009 pending on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.

It is the case of the Petitioners that they are facing trial for the offences registered u/s 279, 337 and 379 (NP) I.P.C.; the alleged occurrence is

said to have happened on 16.01.2007 at 7.00 p.m. while the second Respondent/de-facto complainant was walking from Nagaram Bus stop to

Aandarkulam Village, where her daughter is residing, and on the left side of the road, in between Aandarkulam and Nagaram Road, one bike,

alleged to have been driven by two persons in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her, as a result of which, she sustained injury on her legs

and right knee; then she was taken to her daughter''s house at Aandarkulam by persons who came there; it was alleged that an yellow bag, she

was carrying cash Rs. 20,000/- was also missing; after due search, she cannot trace the same; she was admitted in Sankarankovil Government

hospital and later she was referred to Palayamkottai Government Hospital for further treatment; a case has been registered for the offences under

Sections 279, 337, 379 (NP) I.P.C. and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC in

respect of the first Petitioner/A.1 and for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506 (Part-1) IPC in respect of the second Petitioner/A.2

and the charge sheet was taken on file in C.C. No. 74 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District, and

summons were issued directing the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 to appear before the trial Court on 16.07.2009.

It is the further case of the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 that the first Respondent-Police has not properly investigated the case and filed the charge

sheet; the age of the second Respondent/de-facto complainant is 60 years at the time of occurrence; since the occurrence has taken place at 7.10

p.m., she could not see the accused persons and hence, she has not mentioned in the F.I.R. about any witnesses, who have seen the occurrence;

the Petitioners are innocent; at the time of recording the statement u/s 161(3) Code of Criminal Procedure on 20.01.2007, the second

Respondent/de-facto complainant stated the vehicle number and also identified the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2, and hence, the Petitioners have come

forward with the present Crl.O.P. to quash the charge sheet filed against them.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first Respondent-Police submitted that on the basis of the complaint given by

the second Respondent/de-facto complainant, a case has been registered and after due investigation, the charge sheet has been filed, which was

also taken on file in C.C. No. 74 of 2009 and out of 15 witnesses, eight witnesses have already been examined and for the examination of other

witnesses, the case was posted on 03.09.2010; whether the ingredients of the offences are made out against the Petitioners and whether the

witnesses have identified the accused or not, can be decided only after letting in oral and documentary evidence, and so it is a premature stage to

decide as to whether the second Respondent/de-facto complainant was able to identify the vehicle number and the accused and it can be decided

only at the time of trial, and hence, he prayed for dismissal of Crl.O.P.

This Court also heard the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent/de-facto complaint.

Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, it is seen that the second Respondent/de-facto complainant has given a complaint stating

that the first Petitioner/A.1 has driven the vehicle bearing registration number TN-72-3259 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her

and the second Petitioner/A.2 was the pillion rider. At the time of occurrence, the second Petitioner/A.2 abused the second Respondent/de-facto

complainant and kicked her and made criminal intimidation and hence the charge sheet has been filed against the first Petitioner/A.1 for the

offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and against the second Petitioner/A.2 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506 (Part

1) IPC.

At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Chand Agarwalla Vs. Shanti Bose and

Another, etc., , wherein, the Apex Court held as follows

Where the accused moved the High Court at the time when the trial was almost coming to a close and what remained to be done was the

examination of two prosecution and one Court witnesses and the High Court quashed the charge and the entire proceedings on the grounds that

the complainant suppressed material facts and that the evidence on record did not establish the alleged offence, the order was liable to be set

aside. The proper course at that stage to be adopted by the High Court was to allow the proceedings to go on and to come to its logical

conclusion, one way or the other, and decline to interfere with those proceedings. The questions whether there was suppression and whether the

evidence established the alleged offence were matters to be considered by the trial Court after an appraisal of the entire evidence.

In the present case, a perusal of the charge would show that totally, 15 number of witnesses have been cited, out of which eight witnesses were

examined and there are seven witnesses remaining to be examined and the case has been posted on 03.09.2010 for examination of the other

witnesses. Since the present case is in a part-heard stage, this Court cannot exercise its power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the

proceedings at this stage. Furthermore, all the points raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2, are only questions of

fact that have to be decided only at the time of trial by the trial Court and it is open for the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 to raise all the points at the time

of trial.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the above citation is applicable to the facts of this case and the arguments advanced by the

learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, do not merit acceptance and the Criminal Original Petition deserves to be dismissed.

In the result,

(a) the Crl.O.P. is dismissed.

(b) However, since the occurrence is of the year 2007 and as already eight witnesses were examined, the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli, is directed to dispose of the case in C.C. No. 74 of 2009, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

(c) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.