RUDRAMURTHY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the defacto complainant in C.C. No. 74 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram, has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2011 passed in C.M.P. No. 3067 of 2011 in C.C. No. 74 of 2011, by which, his application filed under Section 319 Cr. P.C. to implead the third respondent herein as one of the accused in the calander case was dismissed by the Court below. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2010 at about 11.30 am, in the national highway leading to Chennai from Vellore, the father of the petitioner herein namely Deivasigamani was riding the TVS 50 motor cycle bearing Registration No. MYK 8782. When the motor cycle was nearing Rajakulam bus stop, the Car bearing Registration No. TN 01 AL 4447 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two wheeler from behind. In the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and died on the spot. In this context, the petitioner had given a complaint to the first respondent police based on which the case in Crime No. 763 of 2010 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the Car.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the Car was driven by the third respondent herein and she was also called upon to the police station for enquiry, but at a later point of time, the petitioner came to know that the case was registered only against the second respondent, who is said to have driven the car. According to the petitioner, in order to safeguard the third respondent, the case was registered against the second respondent, who according to the petitioner, was not the driver of the car at the relevant point of time and it is the third respondent who had driven the car. Earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Crl. O.P. No. 1004 of 2011 seeking for a direction to direct the first respondent herein to investigate the case in Crime No. 763 of 2010 by altering the name of the accused. This Court, after hearing the counsel for both sides, by order dated 18.01.2011, directed the first respondent herein to conduct appropriate investigation in Crime No. 763 of 2010 in a fair manner in accordance with law and file the charge sheet as expeditiously as possible. Even thereafter, the first respondent laid the charge sheet only as against the second respondent leaving the third respondent scot-free.

(3.) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined of them P.W. 1 turned hostile. The petitioner examined himself as P.W. 2. P.W. 3 and 4 are projected as eye witnesses besides that they have also signed the mahazar prepared by the first respondent police. P.W. 5 was the Doctor who performed the postmortem of the deceased. According to the petitioner, P.W. 4 has categorically deposed in his statement under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. as well as during the course of his chief-examination before the trial court that at the time of accident, the car was driven by the third respondent. Therefore, by relying on the deposition of P.W. 4 and other material evidences, the petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 3067 of 2011 under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. to implead the third respondent herein also as an accused in C.C. No. 74 of 2011 and she should also be tried as an accused before the trial court to ascertain as to whether the car was driven by the third respondent or by the second respondent. The trial court dismissed the said petition against which the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.