w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Durai Raj v/s The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PLC035742

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB1949PTC000515

Company & Directors' Information:- G RAJ & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1993PTC058140

Company & Directors' Information:- R M RAJ AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1952PTC002146

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ & RAJ PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PTC052055

    Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 14161 of 2020 & Crl.M.P. (MD) Nos. 6553 & 6554 of 2020

    Decided On, 17 December 2020

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU

    For the Petitioner: R. Karunanidhi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, V. Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case pending in S.C.No.85 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Valliyur and quash the same as against the petitioner concerned.)1. This petition has been filed to call for the entire records pertaining to the case pending in S.C.No.85 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Valliyur and quash the same as against the petitioner concerned.2. The allegation in the FIR is that on 06.01.2013, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant who is the Sub Inspector of Police received an information about the communal tension at Yocopuram village panchayat and rushed to the occurrence place about 06.00 p.m., wherein, the petitioner and other accused persons abused the defacto complainant and pelted stones against her and threatned her with dire consequences. Based on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, FIR has been registered against 49 persons including the petitioner herein for the offences under Sectiosn 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 332, 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w 149 IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, on 06.01.2013.3. It is the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of occurrence namely, 06.01.2013, the petitioner was in Singapore for his employment purpose and he returned to India only on 02.02.2014 and in support of the same, he has produced the extract of passport and travel particulars in the form of typedset of papers. He would also state that either in the charge sheet or in the 161(3) statements, there is no allegation of intimidation or other offences against the petitioner and thus he would pray for quashing the impugned proceedings in S.C.No.85 of 2019, as against the petitioner.4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would state that there are totally 49 accused in this case and the petitioner is A34 and after verifying with the passport of the petitioner and immigration details found therein, he would state that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was not in India and he returned to India only on 02.02.2014.5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In view of the order going to be passed, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.6. Perusal of the petitioner's passport enclosed in the typedset of papers shows that on the date of occurrence namely, 06.01.2013, he was not in India and he reached Singapore on 05.01.2013 itself which informations are printed in the petitioner's passport along with immigration office seal and therefore, I am inclined to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.85 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Valliyur,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

in respect of the petitioner alone.7. Accordingly, the proceedings in S.C.No.85 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Valliyur, are quashed in respect of this petitioner/A34 alone and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R