1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD).No.203 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 1. David Gnanaiah 2. Selvasingh Baliah 3. T.David Jeyasingh ... Petitioners/Accused Vs. 1. State through the Sub-Inspector of Police Sathankulam Police Station Sathankulam Thoothukudi District 2. Gunaseelan Thangadurai ... Respondents/Complainants PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 10.2.11 of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam as confirmed by the Judgment, passed in Cr.M.P.No. 226 of 2011. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate For 2nd Respondent : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Sr. Advocate for Mr.K.Prabhu O R D E R The revision petitioners challenging the order, dated 10.02.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No. 226 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam and as per the order, they along with one David had been arrayed as an accused for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 326, 323, 506(ii) of IPC read with 114 of IPC. 2. Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of the second respondent/de-facto complainant recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., and would submit that even assuming without https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 admitting that the contents of the said statements are true, still the respondents 2 and 3 can be charged only for the commission of offence under Section 341 of IPC and not in respect of other Sections. In so far as arraying the first petitioner is an accused, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that not even an iota of material available in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the prosecution and hence, prayed for setting aside the order. 3. The Court heard the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) also. 4. Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that since the revision petitioners had also played their role for attacking and causing injuries to the second respondent/ de-facto complainant and that the investigating agency has not chosen to array the revision petitioners as accused, the Lower Court on taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., has rightly taken cognizance and issued summons to them and no interference may be warranted at the hands of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 5. The Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the documents in the form of typed set of papers. 6. A perusal of the 161(3) statement of the second respondent/de-facto complainant would indicate that there was altercation in which the second respondent was attacked by one Jeyakaran at the instigation of one Sekara Guru and that the second and third respondents wrongfully restrained the de-facto complainant from proceeding further. This Court has also perused the statements of 161(3) of Cr.P.C., of other witnesses and those statements do not indicate the role played by any of the revision petitioners. The fact remains that as per the 161(3) of Cr.P.C., statement of the second respondent, the revision petitioners 2 and 3 had wrongfully restrained him and therefore, the Lower Court was right in arraying the second and third respondents as accused in respect of alleged commission of offence under Section 341 of IPC and issued summons to them. 7. But in so far as taking cognizance in respect of the respondents 2 and 3 with regard to the commission of offences under Sections 326, 323, 506(ii) of IPC read with 114 of IPC, there is no material available in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating agency during investigation. As already stated above, in so far as the first petitioner is concerned, none of the witnesses had said anything about him. 8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed and the order, dated 10.02.2011, made in Cr.M.P.No. 226 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, is set aside, in so far as the first revision petitioner is concerned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and in respect of the second and third petitioners are concerned, the cognizance in respect of Section 341 of IPC alone is sustainable and in respect of the offences under Sections 326, 323, 506(ii) of IPC read with 114 of IPC, they cannot arrayed as accused. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 9. The findings /observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this Revision Petition and this Court has not touched upon the merits of the case to be projected by the prosecution as well as the defence to be projected by the concerned accused. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam. 2. -Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi District. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy to: The Section Officer, Criminal Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD).No.203 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 22.06.2011 vsg NSV/07.07.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/