CRL RC/1524/2019 of SUDHAKAR Vs STATE BY on 30 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Criminal Revision Case No.1524 of 2019andCrl.M.P.Nos.19261 and 19262 of 2019

SudhakarS/o.Deivasigamani .. Petitioner

versus

State represented by itsThe Inspector of Police,CCIW CID, Vellore,Vellore District.Crime No.23/2014.. Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision filed u/s.397 and 401 Cr.P.C. prayingto call for the entire records concerned in C.C.No.453 of 2016and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.8106 of 2019 inC.C.No.453 of 2016 dated 05.12.2019 by the Judicial MagistrateII, Vellore.

For Petitioner :Mr.B.Lenin BaluFor Respondent:Mr.T.ShunmugarajeswaranGovernment Advocate Petitioner has filed the present revision seeking to setaside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.8106 of 2019 in C.C.No.453of 2016 dated 05.12.2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate II,Vellore.

2. The petitioner is figured as fourth accused inC.C.No.453 of 2016 on the file of learned Judicial MagistrateII, Vellore, for offences u/s.406, 465, 471, 477(A) r/w 109 IPC.There are as many as ten accused in this case. The petitionerfiled Crl.M.P.No.8106 of 2019 u/s.239 Cr.P.C. for discharginghimself from the case. It is not in dispute that the respondent

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

did not file any counter opposing the said prayer. Thepetitioner had specifically averred in his petition that on05.12.2019 without hearing him or the respondent, the petitionwas suddenly dismissed by the Court below.

3. I have carefully went through the contents of theimpugned order. In paragraph No.8, the Court below has stated asfollows:

‘8. Records perused. This Court has affordedsufficient opportunity to the respondent/police andA.P.P. to file their counter but even then they havenot chosen to file their reply statements. Moreoverthe petitioner contention seeking to discharge whenthere are materials making out a primafacie casecannot be entertained and the petition may bedismissed directing the petitioner to stand for trial.On perusal of records it was found that the petitionis premature one which cannot be entertained at thisstage. Since, elaborate trial has to be conductedbefore this Hon'ble Court either to prove or todisprove the allegations levelled against thepetitioner and hence this petition cannot beentertained and the same is dismissed accordingly.’

4. I am of the view that the impugned order is rather non-speaking. Neither the prosecution nor the Court below has statedas to how there are prima facie materials obtaining against thepetitioner herein. Therefore, the matter will have to be re-heard by the Court below. In this view of the matter, theimpugned order dated 05.12.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.8106 of2019 in C.C.No.453 of 2016 is set aside and the CriminalRevision Case is allowed. The matter is remitted to the file ofthe learned trial Judge for fresh disposal in accordance withlaw. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anythingon the merits of the matter. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar(C.S.)

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

To