IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25/08/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
CRL.O.P.No.19231 of 2001
R.Baskaran .. Petitioner
-Vs-
State by: Inspector of Police
Arumanai Police Station
Kanyakumari District
(Crime No.280/2001) .. Respondent
This criminal original petition is filed under Sec.482 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for the records in S.C.No.180/2001 on the file of
the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai and quash the same insofar as this
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sukumaran
For Respondent : Mr.O.Srinath,
Government Advocate(Crl. Side)
:ORDER
This petition is brought forth by the second accused in S.C.No.180 of
2001 pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai, seeking
to quash the proceedings against him.
2. The petitioner along with two others was committed by the
concerned Judicial Magistrate, and the case was taken on file by the Court of
Sessions in S.C.No.180/01. The petitioner along with others, on committal,
was questioned about the case, and the necessary charges were framed against
him for the offences under Ss 342, 323, 194 and 218 read with 34 of I.P.C.
Having pleaded not guilty at that stage, the petitioner has brought forth this
petition seeking to quash the charges framed against him in that proceedings.
3. Interalia, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit
that there were no basic materials to frame charges against him; that charge
under Sec.194 of I.P.C. has also been framed against him; that as
contemplated under Sec.195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedere, before
proceeding with the case, a sanction has got to be accorded, if it would
include Sec.194 of I.P.C. also; that in the instant case, the procedural
formalities were not followed, and hence, a charge under Sec.194 of I.P.C.
should not have been framed. Added further, the learned Counsel that the
charge framed under Sec.194 of I.P.C. is to be deleted; that the other
charges framed against him under Ss 342 , 323 and 218 read with 34 of I.P.C.
are exclusively triable by the Judicial Magistrate; that charges under Ss 342
and 323 are also barred by limitation; that there is no occasion for the Court
of Sessions to proceed with the case, and hence, the proceedings against the
petitioner/A-2 have got to be quashed.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) fairly conceded
that the charge under Sec.194 of I.P.C. has also been framed without
necessary sanction what has been required as per the Criminal Procedure Code,
and hence, the charge under Sec.194 of I.P.C. should not have been framed;
that insofar as the charges under Ss 342, 323 and 218 read with 34 of I.P.C.,
the Court of Sessions has to be permitted to proceed with the case against the
petitioner along with A-1 and A-3 against whom necessary charges have been
framed.
5. After hearing both sides, the Court has to necessarily agree with
the contentions put forth by the petitioner’s side that a charge under Sec.194
of I.P.C. should not have been framed, since necessary sanction what is
required under the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been obtained. But,
the Court is unable to see any merit in the contention put forth by the
petitioner’s side in respect of the charges under Ss 342, 323 and 218 read
with 34 of I.P.C., and that too, in particular, in a case where charges
against A-1 and A-3 have also been framed. Hence, the charge against the
petitioner/A-2 under Sec.194 of I.P.C. alone is quashed, and in respect of
the other charges against the petitioner/A-2, the Court of Sessions shall
proceed with the trial along with A-1 and A-3. However, it is open to the
petitioner to raise the contentions what he is to put forth both legal and
factual plea, at the time of trial.
6. Therefore, this criminal original petition is disposed of
accordingly.
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
To:
1) The Assistant Sessions Judge,
Kuzhithurai.
2) The Inspector of Police
Arumanai Police Station
Kanyakumari District
(Crime No.280/2001)
3) The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
nsv/