P MOORTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, A5 in Crime No.79 of 2015 for offences under Sections 342 and 304(ii) IPC has filed this quash petition.

(2.) (i)The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, who is the administrative officer of Gandhi Polytechnic College, Vinnapalli, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode Districts lodged a complaint against the petitioner and five others. From the complaint, it is seen that around 40 boys and 31 girls from North East, Sikkim were studying and staying in the Gandhi Polytechnic College. On 20.03.2015 at about 7.45 p.m., the de facto complainant along with one Munusamy, Canteen incharge and Rangasamy, Assistant Warden were serving food to the inmates. At that time, there was some commotion near the security gate between the security man and six persons, who are residents of Vinnappali village. They are accused, A1 Ramasamy, A2 Velmurugan, A3 Ponnusamy, A4 Kuppan, A5 Moorthi, the petitioner herein and A6 Paramesh. Apart from Ramasamy, others came in bike and picked quarrel with the college management that three students from the college were roaming in the village in a suspicious manner, when questioned, picked up quarrel with the villagers. One of the student was caught and other twos ran away from the place.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on going through the F.I.R, it is seen that there is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioner. In fact while the petitioner was returning to his village on his motor bike, the respondent police intercepted him and questioned, about his involvement in the said occurrence and he is falsely arrayed as an accused in this case. The petitioner had not participated in the detention, assault and not chased the students of the Gandhi Polytechnic College. The petitioner was named and identified by the watchman of the college, who is the neighbour of the petitioner, with whom the villagers picked up quarrel. The detained students namely Charan Sharma and Minkur Lapser had neither stated the name of the petitioner nor identified him.