T V PALANISWAMY NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under S. 439 and 561a of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Seeking to quash a criminal prosecution initiated by the State against the petitioner for alleged commission of offences punishable under S. 324 and 326, I. P. C. The case is pending before the first Class Magistrate of Nedumangad as C. C. No. 473 of 1955. 0n 28. 7. 1955 the petitioner filed a petition before the court to cancel the process issued against him and to order his discharge. The grounds, therefor, were set out therein as follows: "the charge sheet clearly shows that the accused fired in the exercise of the right of private defence, of person and property. As nothing is an offence done in the exercise of that right, the charge sheet does not disclose any offence as having been committed by the accused. Under the circumstances it is respectfully submitted that the prosecution of the accused, amounts to an abuse of process of law". The learned Magistrate's order thereon is in these terms: "i don't consider that it is necessary for me to stop at this stage and hear on this petition. Prosecution will adduce evidence". The present application is to revise this order and to quash the proceedings.

(2.) THE grounds on which the High Court will interfere to quash a criminal proceeding pending before a subordinate court are well-known and this Court had occasion to consider them in the decision reported in 1951 k. L. T. 344. Prior to that in (1111) X Travancore Law Times 12 and in (1124) XL cochin Law Reports 153, the erstwhile High Courts of Travancore and Cochin had laid down the conditions which would justify the High Court's interference to quash a pending prosecution before a Subordinate Court almost in the same terms as those contained in 1951 K. L. T. 344. Decisions of other High Courts in India to which my attention was invited during the course of the arguments do not enunciate the principles differently. It is therefore unnecessary for me to refer to all these cases. Most of them are referred to in the Travancore and cochin cases mentioned above. Barring decisions which came into existence since then, of which reference need be made to two alone namely, A. I. R. 1954 Punjab 193 and A. I. R. 1955 Allahabad 531, I content myself by citing a decision of the chief Court of 0udh wherein Wazir Hasan, C. J. , made an exhaustive review of the case-law bearing on the point then available. THE case is reported in A. I. R. 1933 0udh 387. THE learned Chief Justice said there that broadly speaking the high Court will generally interfere in the interests of justice and to stop the abuse of the process of law.

(3.) I, therefore, quash the proceeding in C. C. No. 473 of 1955 before the First Class Magistrate of Nedumangad and direct that the petitioner - the accused therein - be discharged. Order accordingly.