IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN Crl.OP.No.5598/2006 Cr.MP.No.1406/2006 1.Palani 2.Shanthi 3.Jai Ganesh 4.Rose 5.Sathish Kumar Petitioners Vs Jayammal Respondent Prayer:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in STC.No.946/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Wallajapet, Vellore District and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Muralidharan ORDER This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the Petitioners in STC.No.946/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Wallajapet, Vellore to quash the complaint and the consequential proceedings. 2. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent herein had lodged a complaint before the SIPCOT Police Station, Wallajapet, Vellore against one Usha, Jayaraman and Krishnan for the alleged occurrence took place on 20.7.2004. It is also stated that Usha had also a preferred a complaint as a counter blast in respect of the same occurrence. After receiving both the complaints, the SIPCOT Police had registered a case in Cr.No.206/2004 on 29.7.2004 for the offence under Section 160 of IPC against both the parties. 3. The Police authorities had filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Wallajapet, Vellore District and the same was taken on file in STC.No.1741/2004. In the said case, after full trial, all the accused were acquitted on the ground that the Prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Now, the Respondent has preferred the present private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Wallajapet, Vellore District against all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 294B, 323, 448, 506(i) read with 149 of IPC and the same was taken on file in STC.No.946/2005 and process has been issued to the Petitioners, as against which, the Petitioners have filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the said proceedings. 4. Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners would contend that the case filed under Section 160 of IPC against both the parties ended in acquittal in STC.No.1741/2004 and the present complaint for the same cause of action filed by the Respondent is unsustainable and therefore, the complaint in STC.No.946/2005 and the cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate for the same incident are liable to be quashed. 5. It is seen that on 20.7.2004, the said Usha had given a complaint before the SIPCOT Police Station against Chittibabu, Lognathan, Sampath and Jayammal who is the Respondent herein, for which she was issued a CSR Receipt. With regard to the same incident, the Respondent had also given a complaint to the same Police and on receipt of both the complaints, a case in Cr.No.206/2004 had been registered for the offence under Section 160 of IPC against both the parties. The learned Judicial Magistrate II, Wallajepet, Vellore, after analysing the evidence, acquitted both the parties by judgement dated 31.5.2005. 6. In STC.No.1741/2004, the learned Judicial Magistrate had acquitted the accused persons on the ground that the witnesses PWS.1 and 2, who were said to be the independent witnesses, had turned hostile and there is no evidence to prove the offence under Section 160 of IPC. It is pertinent to point out that the offence under Section 160 of IPC postulates the commission of definite assault or breach of peace and there should be definite evidence of disturbing the public peace. Since there was no evidence to show that there was disturbance of public peace and the witnesses, who were alleged to have witnessed the occurrence, did not support the case of the Prosecution, the learned Judicial Magistrate was constrained to acquit the accused persons. 7. Despite the fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate has earlier accepted the final report of the Police in respect of the FIR registered in question, which later ended in acquittal, the learned Magistrate is not legally barred from taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint, which may be on similar facts as against some accused persons as well as against the other accused. The present complaint has been preferred against the Petitioners herein, who were not arrayed in STC.No.1741/2004. That apart, the present complaint is preferred for the offences under Sections 147, 294B, 324, 448, 506(i) read with 149 of IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Though the present complaint is for the same incident, the allegations and the facts were not the subject matter of the investigation by the Police in STC.No.1741/2004. Allegations are levelled against the Petitioners, who were not parties in the above said case, which requires to be enquired into. The learned Magistrate has issued process on the basis of the complainant's allegations after he being satisfied about the prima facie case. Therefore, the proceedings and the cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be quashed on the basis that in respect of the same incident, the case registered by the Police ended in acquittal. The case in STC.No.1741/2004 is completely different from that of the private complaint preferred by the Respondent herein for different offence and as against different accused. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners has no merits. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. Srcm Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To: 1. The Judicial Magistrate II, Wallajapet, Vellore District. 2. Through The Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras + 1 cc to Mr. M.V. Muralidaran, Advocate SR No.35146 KM(CO) SR/17.8.2009 Order in Crl.OP.No.5598/2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/