K JOTHIMUTHU Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this matter, the respondent, INspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram, filed a final report against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 by name (i) Kuncharavel, (ii) Kumaravel, (iii) Nagalingam and (iv) Sakthi Murugan, for the offence under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC. During the trial before the Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram in S.C. No. 61 of 2004 after recording the evidence of the witnesses, the prosecution filed an application, which was allowed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, to include two more persons as accused by name K. Jothimuthu and Sakthi Murugan. After including Jothimuthu and Sakthi Murugan as accused in the said case, only the accused Sakthi Murugan was available and the accused Jothimuthu was abroad. Therefore, the case was split up in respect of the accused Jothimuthu and numbered as S.C. No. 64 of 2007. The case in S.C. No. 61 of 2007 was tried and the learned Judge convicted all the accused 1 to 4 and also the subsequently added accused Sakthi Murugan. Subsequently, the accused, who were convicted had preferred an appeal before this Court in Crl. A.No. 435 of 2008 and the said appeal was disposed of on 6.7.2010 acquitting the accused Sakthi Murugan, who was added under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, and in respect of the other accused 1 to 4, their convictions were modified from Section 302 read with 34 of IPC, to Section 304(1) read with 34 IPC. IN the meantime, the accused Jothimuthu, who is the revision petitioner herein, who was abroad, appeared before the trial Court in the year 2009 and the warrant, which was pending against him was recalled. Thereafter, he preferred Crl. R.C. No. 360 of 2009, the present application, before this Court challenging the order passed by the trial Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. At the time of filing this revision petition, the Criminal Appeal preferred by the other accused was not disposed of, but on other grounds the revision petition was preferred.

(2.) BOTH the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) were heard.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489 : 1977 SCC (Cr) 404 observed as follows: "7......In the exercise of wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. THE saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. THE ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. THE compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."