1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10728 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 John Bose : Petitioner -Vs- State rep. by 1.The Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. 2.Vijayakumar : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in P.R.C.No.6 of 2006 pending on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vanchinathan For R - 1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet filed in P.R.C.No.6 of 2006 pending on the file of learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A-12 in Crime No.16 of 1994. The occurrence has been taken place on 12.01.1994 and the case has been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent under Sections 147, 148, 341, 332 r/2 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1) of T.N.P.P.D.L Act, 1992. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against nineteen accused. Since A-12, A-15 and A-17 were absconding, the case has been split up against other accused and numbered as S.C.No.155 of 2006. After contest, the said case was ended in acquittal. Now the petitioner has come forward with this petition for quashing the charge sheet filed in P.R.C.No.6 of 2006 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram stating that already all the witnesses were examined and P.Ws.1 to 4 are the eyewitness and they have not identified anyone of the accused. Because of the fees hike, the students joined together and conduct the road roko at the time of occurrence. Since the eyewitnesses have not identified the accused, there is no fruitful purpose would be served, if the petitioner is directed to face the criminal proceedings. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon the order of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7790 of 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) would submit that all the witnesses were examined. After investigation only, the charge sheet has been filed against nineteen accused. He fairly conceded that except A-12, A-15 and A-17, others were acquitted after contest. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 5. Considering the rival submissions made on both sides and also considering the fact that because of the fees hike, the students community conducted road roko and at that time, the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 12.01.1994. The case has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 332 r/2 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1) of T.N.P.P.D.L Act, 1992. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.15 of 2002. Since A-12, A-15 and A-17 were absconding, the case has been split up in P.R.C.No.6 of 2006 and P.R.C.No.15 of 2002 has been committed to the Sessions Court and taken on file as S.C.No.155 of 2006. S.C.No.155 of 2006 after examining P.Ws.1 to 9 and considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P25, ended in acquittal. Now the petitioner who is arrayed as A-12 has come forward with this petition to quash the charge sheet filed against him in P.R.C.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram. 6. At this juncture, it is appropriate to rely upon the order of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7790 of 2009, wherein it is observed as follows: The above said views are fortified by the judgment in Tamilmaran vs. State reported in 2007 (1) LW (Crl) 514, to the proposition that in the event of acquittal of the other accused disbelieving the entire prosecution case, no useful purpose would be served for putting the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial. The same is also fortified by an another judgment in Sunil Kumar v. State, reported in 2000(1) Crimes 73, to the proposition that where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence. 7. Considering the dictum laid down in 2007 (1) LW (Crl) 514(cited supra) and the order of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7790 of 2009, along with the evidence produced before this Court and also considering the fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses in the chief examination never identified anyone of the accused and they are only stated that they are unable to identify the accused since the students joined together and committed the offence. In such circumstances, there is no clinching evidence to identify the petitioner and the other accused, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2006 pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the charge sheet filed in P.R.C.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram. 2.The Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Pm SR : 13.09.2011 : 3p/4c Crl.O.P(MD)No.10728 of 2011 18.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/