UMA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the Final Report taken on file as P.R.C.No.11 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri for the offences under Ss. 120(b), 153(A) of I.P.C., Sec. 4, 5, 6 of Explosive Substance Act and Sec. 25(1)(a) of Arms Act r/w 109 I.P.C.

(2.) The Petitioner is the A12 who is the wife of A11. The crux of the prosecution charge is that due to the death of one person belonging to vanniyar community due to love affairs between two different community boy and girl, there were violence against the Schedule Caste people and houses were burnt which also led to damages to the property. After sometime the boy of the Schedule Caste died in a suspicious circumstance. To take vengeance against the other group, the accused joined together to unleash the violence against the other group, were took armed training with weapons under the Thudi movement which was incharge of A11 and A12 husband and wife. All other accused also joined with terrorist movement of naxalpari and tried to assassinate some important persons in other communities. It is the contention of the prosecution that the present petitioner and her husband under their supervision there was arms training to the other accused. During the investigation, the country made guns and other deadly weapons were seized. After completing the investigation, the prosecution filed Final Report.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that there is no materials against the accused; in the FIR her name is not found, only in the Final Report her name is found. Except some confession statement of the other accused implicating A12 there is no other materials available on record to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, submitted that the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law and it is his contention that the confession of the other accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same cannot be used against this petitioner. Hence submitted that the entire Final Report has to be quashed against this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is a professor and possessed doctorate to her credit she has been unnecessarily implicated.