1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.277 of 2011 Angusamy ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs. 1.The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Srukanur Police Station, Trichy District (in crime No.40 of 2010) ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the order framing charges in S.C.No.183 of 2010 dated 25.10.2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy and set aside the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichy to frame appropriate charges in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondent : Ms.Devasena, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This criminal original petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order framing charges in S.C.No.183 of 2010 dated 25.10.2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy and set aside the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichy to frame appropriate charges in accordance with law. 2.Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Devasena, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Assistant Sessions Judge) Trichy, has received the case papers in S.C.No.183 of 2010 from the learned Principal Sessions Judge of Trichy for trial of the said case and the charges have been framed by the said Court on 25.10.2010 and while framing of such charges, it has been categorically referred that the 1st accused Saravanan was having overt act by having an iron pipe in his hand and had caused injuries on the head of the witness Angusamy and thereby committed an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Similarly, the 2nd charge was framed against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2nd accused Balakrishnan that he was having an Aruval in his hand and caused cut injuries on the left ear and on the back neck of the witness Manoharan and thereby he has committed offences on two counts under Section 307 I.P.C. He would further submit in his argument that the evidence collected during the investigation and the other papers filed along with the charge sheet would go a long way to show that the overt act of the 1st accused Saravanan was with aruval by causing injury on the left ear of witness Angusamy and on the back neck of the witness Manahoran and the overt act of the 2nd accused Balakrishnan was to the effect that he had possessed iron pipe and had caused injuries by hitting with iron pipe on the head of witness Angusamy and thereby he had caused injuries and was liable to be charged under Section 307 I.P.C However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Assistant Sessions Judge) Trichy had vice versa framed the charges and it is purely a typographical mistake or a mistake caused due to inadvertence. Merely because the said mistake has been committed by the Court or the staff of the Court, the victim should not be suffered and accused also would have also been given an opportunity to meet and answer the aforesaid corrected charges. Therefore, he would request the Court that the charges should have been amended and therefore suitable direction may be issued to the lower Court for correcting the charge. 4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in her argument that the charges framed by the trial Court viz., the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Assistant Sessions Judge) in S.C.No.183 of 2010 had committed mistake by mentioning the first accused instead of second accused and mentioning the 2nd accused instead of first accused and therefore, there is a chance for misleading. She would therefore request the Court that suitable direction may be given to the lower Court to correct the said mistake and to proceed for the conduct of the trial only thereafter. 5.I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides. On a careful perusal of the charges framed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in S.C.No.183 of 2010 on 25.10.2020, the overt act said to have been committed by the 1st accused was with the iron pipe and there was only one count of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was framed and the injured person was said to have sustained injuries on his head by hitting the iron pipe by the 1st accused. Similarly, the 2nd accused viz., Balakrishnan was said to have possessed of an Aruval in his hand and had attracked the left ear of the witness Angusamy and also on the neck back of the witness Manoharan and had thus committed under Section 307 I.P.C. on two counts. 6.On a careful scrutiny of the charge papers, we could see that the overt act of the 1st accused Saravanan was only with an Aruval against both the witness Angusamy and Manoharan. Similarly, the overt act of the 2nd accused Balakrishnan would be with the iron pipe against the witness Angusamy only. The said charges framed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy on 25.10.2010 is found to be mistakenly framed vice versa and it would have been caused due to typographical error while framing of charge or by inadvertence since https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 it was not cross checked by the Court concerned. The said defect in framing of charges should not in any way affect the defacto complainant or the prosecution. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, who is also an Assistant Sessions Judge, competent to conduct the case in S.C.No.183 of 2010, to rectify the mistakes and defects as mentioned above, while framing the charges and to alter the charges and to put questions to the accused and record their pleas in accordance with law. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy is also directed to give opportunity to both parties and to proceed further in correcting the mistake caused in framing the charges by the said Court on 25.10.2010. 12.With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is ordered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy 2.The Inspector of Police, Srukanur Police Station, Trichy District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate Sr.No.1317 arul ssk/15.02.2011 /5c-3p/- Crl.O.P.(MD).No.277 of 2011 11.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/