MADAN MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in SC.No.61 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Ss. 302, 202 & 176 of IPC as against the petitioner and others.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that Al, A2 and the deceased were the employees of Sri Pavanambigai Paper and Board Private Limited. The petitioner is the son of the Managing Director of the company. It is alleged that A1, A2 and the deceased had received their salaries from the company on 19/11/2019 and proceeded to TASMAC shop to consume liquor. A1, A2 and the deceased returned to the employees' quarters, whereupon a quarrel began between A1, A2 and the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased questioned A1 as to why he was being paid only Rs.10,000.00 when Al had promised to get Rs.12,000.00 from the company. It is alleged that the deceased had made derogatory remarks against the wife of A1, whereupon in a sudden fit of rage, Al and A2 assaulted the deceased with wooden logs. It is the further case of the prosecution that at about 7 pm on 20/11/2019, PW-11 went to check the deceased, whereupon he was learnt that the deceased was not breathing. PW11 alerted PW-1, who immediately alerted the police and called for an ambulance. It is alleged that the petitioner thereafter confronted PW-11 and scolded him for informing to the police, stating that he would have taken care of the body. A case in Crime No 705 of 2019 was registered by the 1st respondent under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. The case was subsequently altered to one under Sec. 302 IPC. After investigation, the 1st respondent has filed a charge sheet.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial court ought not to have taken cogniance under Sec. 176 of IPC as against the petitioner on the basis of a police report, in the teeth of the express bar under Sec. 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. which prohibits a court from taking cognizance of such an offence except upon a complaint by a public servant. The charge under Sec. 202 of IPC cannot be framed if an accused did not know that an offence, of which he was illegally bound to give information, had been committed. In the case on hand, PW11 who was the watchman of the company had no clue about the death of the deceased at about 11 a.m. on 20/11/2019. The death of the deceased was came to be known by PW11 only at about 7 p.m. on 20/11/2019. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be charged with failure to give information about the commission of an offence when he had no clue that such offence had taken place.