NIRMALKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.655 of 2016, on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

(2.) The gist of the case is that on 27/6/2016, at about 10.00 a.m., when the 2nd respondent was proceeding to his work near old Metal Cox Company, a person aged about 50 years along with four persons restrained him and demanded money. The 2nd respondent replied that he had no money and attempted to run away. At that time, the person, aged about 50 years took a knife from his hip and placed it on the petitioner's throat and warned him not to make any noise. Thereafter, the other persons took Rs.1,500.00 from the 2nd respondent's pocket and threatened him not to lodge any complaint. Sensing fear, the 2nd respondent escaped from the accused and lodged a complaint to the 1st respondent Police and a case in Crime No.655 of 2016, for offence under Ss. 392, 397 and 506(ii) was registered.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to somehow detain the petitioner and other accused under Goondas Act, the above false case has been registered against them. In this case, if the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in such a way, none of the accused name is mentioned in the FIR. In the first statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., the 2nd respondent did not mention the name of the accused. On the same day, again the statement of the 2nd respondent is said to have been recorded, wherein the petitioner's name as well as the other accused name (Pradeep Raj/A1, Yuvaraj/A2, Kumar @ Kappal Kumar/A3, the petitioner/A4 and Jeeva/A5) were mentioned. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent is a stock witness to the 1st respondent Police and he is used to according their convenience. To prove the fact that the 2nd respondent is a stock witness, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of judgment of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.2374 of 2017, dtd. 12/10/2021, wherein the learned Magistrate confirmed that the 2nd respondent is a stock witness to the 1st respondent Police.