IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.21493 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 1. Sivagnanam 2. R. Pandu .. Petitioners Versus Thanjiappan .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.81 of 2006 now pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Polur and quash the prosecution insofar as the petitioners are concerned. For Petitioners : Mr. V.Karthic for M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co. For Respondent : No appearance O R D E R The petitioners have filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C.No.81 of 2006 now pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Polur and quash the prosecution case insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 2. The respondent's case is that he has filed C.C.No.81 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Tiruvannmalai District, against four persons namely 1. Sivagnanam, s/o Ramasamy Udayar, 2, R.Pandu, son of Chakravarthy 3. Babu, son of Subramani and 4.Murthy, son of Krishnan for an alleged offence under section 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC. The respondent has stated that he is working as a driver of a lorry, in the Agricultural Co-operative Society. The said lorry was sold and then the driver/respondent was removed form service. The Agricultural Co-operative Society paid some amount to the respondent for termination of services. The respondent approached https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Honourable Court seeking relief. This Honourable Court directed the co-operative society to appoint him as night watchman. 3. The Agricultural Co-operative Society imposed a condition that the respondent should pay the amount paid by the co-operative society, along with 18% interest. Accordingly, the respondent paid the amount to the 1st petitioner herein. The 1st petitioner told the respondent to meet him after some time. After several meetings the 1st petitioner returned the money but refused to give him a job. Again on 11.04.2005, at 4 p.m, the respondent met the 1st and 2nd petitioner and questioned them as to why they had not given him the job. Immediately, the 1st petitioner used abusive language against the respondent. The 2nd petitioner threatened the respondent and warned him that if he sees him again, he will murder him. The next day, the 3rd and 4th accused persons threatened the respondent and supported the 1st accused and the 3rd accused had also beaten the respondent with stick. The 4th accused had also beaten the respondent with stick. Further, the 3rd and 4th accused threatened to murder him. In the result, the respondent sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital as in- patient for some time. Thereafter, the respondent lodged a complaint with Police Station, Polur along with wound certificate. The concerned police officer did not take any action on his complaint. Supporting his case, the respondent furnished 2 witnesses. 4. The learned Magistrate has taken the case on his file and issued summons to the parties. 5. Now, the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 have filed the quash petition on the below mentioned grounds. 1) The cognizance of the offence against all the accused is opposed to mandatory provision of section 223 of Criminal Procedure Code. Further, there is not even a whispera that the incident on 12.04.2005 was on account of the abutment or instigation by the petitioners and therefore, the joint trial of accused is contrary to law. 2) The petitioners state that even in the complaint, it is not stated that the incident took place in public place and therefore, the invocation of section 294(b) is not maintainable. Further even in the sworn statement, there is no mention that the incident took place on 11.04.2005 in a public place and therefore, the basic ingredient which is necessary for an offence under section 294(b), viz, abusing in a public place is lacking and the cognizance is contrary to law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3) The petitioners further state that the complaint states that both the petitioners were present on 11.04.2005 when alleged incident took place, in the sworn statement, there is no reference to the presence of the 2nd petitioner and therefore, the cognizance qua the 2nd petitioners for the alleged incident on 11.04.2005 cannot be sustained. 4) Further, the petitioners submit that there is absolutely no materiel to proceed with the case, as the complainant has not mentioned the doctor and the nature of treatment, the respondent got for the alleged wound. Further, the said case has been taken on file as early as 01.02.2006 and till date no progress has been made. Hence, the petitioners seek quash of the proceedings. 6. Considering the respondent's private complainant and petitioners contentions and argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court is of the view that the respondent has taken treatment in the Government Hospital, Polur as in-patient. The medical records itself is a vital important document for the criminal case. Moreover, the respondent has stated that initially he had approached the concerned police station, but complaint was not entertained. Hence the respondent/complainant has approached the Court for his remedy. In the said proceedings, the Court is unable to find any irregularities. So, the case in C.C.No.81 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Polur cannot be quashed. In this context, the Criminal Original Petition No.21493 of 2007 is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. skn/mra Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras + 1 cc to M/s. T. S. Gopalan & Co., SR No.35506 Crl.O.P.No.21493 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 MRD(CO) SR/19.8.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/