Vijayaraghavan and Others vs The State and Others

S. Vaidyanathan, J.—The petitioner has come forward with this petition praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 290 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

The case of the petitioners is that originally, a complaint has been given against four persons and ultimately charge sheet has been filed against three persons in C.C. No. 290 of 2014, except the accused No. 1, even though he has been arrayed as an accused No. 1.

The further case of the petitioners is that the de-facto complainant eloped with the sister of the 2nd petitioner and that already a sessions case in S.C. No. 21 of 2014 is pending on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Theni. In order to defeat the said case, the de-facto complainant has preferred a complaint against these petitioners and that they are not at all involved in the alleged offences, much less the offences mentioned in C.C. No. 290 of 2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District.

The petitioners drew the attention of this Court to various statements given by the witnesses. A close reading of the statement made under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C., would go to show that the de-facto complainant has been attacked with weapons like aruval, wooden log and iron rods and that the petitioners herein have been accused of offences under Sections 324 and 506(ii) IPC. As there is a serious disputed question of facts involved and that the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant has been injured, it is a matter for evidence before the criminal Court and this Court cannot interfere with the charge sheet, at this stage, more particularly, taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in HMIT Watches Ltd., v. M.A. Abida & Another reported in (2015(2) CTC 446).

The petitioners would submit that because of the threat, the persons cannot come and give evidence in C.C. No. 290 of 2014, in which, the petitioners 1 to 3 are shown as accused. The trial Court and the respondent police would know how to give protection to the witnesses, who may give evidence and that may not be a ground for quashing the charge sheet in C.C. No. 290 of 2014.

In the light of the above discussions, more particularly, in view of the decision of the Apex Court stated supra, this Court is not inclined to quash the case in C.C. No. 290 of 2014. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court may be dispensed with.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the trial Court to dispense with the personal appearance of petitioners before it, upon the petitioners swearing to an affidavit informing their address for service, that they duly would be represented by their counsel on all hearing dates, that they would, at no instance, dispute their identity and that, they would appear before the trial Court, as and when required. Upon the petitioners doing so, the trial court may seek the presence of the petitioners before it, solely on the important hearing dates. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.