M K ELANGOVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein, viz., the Inspector of Police, attached to the Coonoor Police Station, Nilgiris District, had registered a criminal case in Crime No.934 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 186 and 353 of I.P.C. against the revision petitioner herein, viz., M.K.Elangovan. The defacto complainant, Mr.M.P.Janarthanam, Personal Assistant to the Assistant Collector, Coonoor, has stated in his complaint that on 20.09.2007 an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Coonoor under Section 138 of Criminal Procedure Code and at that point of time, the defacto complainant recorded the evidence of one Mr.Penthose, President of Kodanad Panchayat, who is a petitioner in the said case. The revision petitioner herein has filed a vakalat on behalf of the Estate Manager, Kodanad Tea Estate,and snatched away the records and the evidence recorded from the defacto complainant and tore it off., hence, the case lodged against the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the Inspector of Police had conducted an enquiry in the said criminal case and filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of Coonoor. At this stage, the revision petitioner herein had filed C.M.P.No.3154 of 2008 in S.T.R.No.290 of 2008 to discharge him from the criminal case. The said petition was resisted by the respondent-police. After hearing the arguments of learned counsels on both sides, the discharge petition was dismissed. The learned Magistrate, had assigned the reason stating that the charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Sections 204 and 353 of IPC along with the torn records. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioner cannot be discharged from the proceedings since a full fledged trial is of paramount importance.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate that in order to attract an offence under Section 204 of IPC, the documents which are seen to have been destroyed by the accused should have been summoned by any Court as evidence, whereas, in this case, the accused is alleged to have slit the deposition of the third person, who was recorded by the P.A. to the Collector, i.e, the defacto complainant in the instant case, before a public servant or any Court which does not cover an offence under Section 204 of I.P.C. The learned senior counsel specifically pointed out that the trial Court failed to consider three aspects before deciding the discharge petition, viz.,