BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05/09/2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.763 of 2008
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008
Jefarulla ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Madasami
2.State represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Sambavarvadakarai,
Crime No.61 of 2007. ... Respondents
Prayer
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records from the lower Court and to set
aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi in
Crl.M.P.No.3771 of 2008 in C.C.No.433 of 2007 dated 03.06.2008 and quash the
final report in Crime No.61 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police.
!For Petitioner... Mr.AR.Jeya Rhuthran
^For Respondent... Mr.L.Murugan
No.2 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
* * * * *
:ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi dated 03.06.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.3771 of 2008
in C.C.No.433 of 2007, dismissing the discharge application filed by the
petitioner.
2. The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.433 of 2007 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
originally in the First Information Report, this petitioner and 20 identifiable
persons were mentioned as accused, but now the final report is filed only
against this petitioner along with three other persons, as accused. Though the
names of this petitioner and three other persons were found in the First
Information Report, no Test Identification Parade was conducted in respect of
other three accused persons and there was a delay of two days in preferring the
First Information Report.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that
there was some civil dispute and a suit was also filed by the second accused in
this case against the first accused and one Ramalingam, who was the owner of the
land, but the said Ramalingam has not been examined by the Investigating
Officer.
5. This Court considers the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. The points raised by the petitioner are not
sufficient for discharging him from the case in C.C.No.433 of 2007 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. These points may be considered
only at the stage of trial. The petitioner has not made out a case to discharge
him from the said case. On the other hand, on perusal of statements of
witnesses, this Court concludes that a prima facie case is made out against the
accused. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently,
connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 is dismissed.
smn
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Sambavarvadakarai,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.