Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 4899 of 2010. Case: Raju Vs The State and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 4899 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sulthan Basha for M. Ajmal Khan, Advs. and For Respondents: K. Anbarasan, Government Advocate |
| Judges | B. Gokuldas, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 147, 200, 379, 427, 448, 482 |
| Judgement Date | January 30, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
B. Gokuldas, J.
-
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the order, dated 15.12.2009 made in Cr.M.P. No. 1400 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Vilathikulam and set aside the same and pass further order directing any competent agency to conduct further investigation.
-
The case of the petitioner/de facto complainant is that his relatives started picking up quarrel with him in respect of some properties. On 28.06.2008, at about 07.00 a.m., the accused persons trespassed into his house by breaking open the front gate and smashed the properties kept inside his house and also stolen away the valuable wood kept therein. It is the further case of the petitioner that the accused persons criminally trespassed into his property and damaged all the trees therein. When the same was questioned by him, they criminally intimidated him by showing aruval and further the accused persons prevented the petitioner from entering into his house. Hence, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the respondent police and the same was registered in Crime No. 116 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 427 and 506(i) and 379 (NP) against one Balamurguan and 7 others.
-
It is the further case of the petitioner that even though the case was registered as early as on 29.06.2008, the respondent police has not conducted any proper investigation, inspite production of sufficient evidence including a compact disc. When the matter stood thus, to his shock and surprise, without examining the petitioner and the witnesses, the respondent police served a referred notice to the petitioner as if the case registered in Crime No. 116 of 2008, on 29.06.2008 was referred as "mistake of fact" on the same day along with a copy of referred charge sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the respondent police filed a referred charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam. The petitioner applied for the same and obtained a copy of the charge sheet filed before the Magistrate concerned. Since the charge sheet filed before the Court and the charge sheet served to the petitioner are having different contents, the petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P. No. 1400 of 2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, to transfer the case for further investigation. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, vide order...
To continue reading
Request your trial