CHANDRASEKARA PANDIAN Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai, in C.R.P. No. 273 of 1987 in S.C. No. 61 of 1987, refusing to discharge the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) These petitioners stand trial before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai, for the offences under Sections 147, 148,452,336,324 and 307 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code, on a private complaint. The petitioners filed the petition before the trial Judge to discharge them under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure as alleging that they have been prosecuted only for the purpose of harassing them and the property in question belonged to them and there are no sufficient materials to frame charge against them and therefore; they are entitled to be discharged. As this petition was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the petitioners have come forward with this revision. Two points alone have been urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners and they are the absence of the names of these petitioners in the complaint given against them to the police and secondly, non-examination of all the witnesses given in the private cc m p Ia i nt.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Dinakaran argues that the complainant Muthukaruppa Thevar gave the complaint to Othappanaickenur Sub-Inspector of Police on 25.5.1981 in respect of the occurrence mentioned in the complaint and in the complaint he would state only the names of the accused 1 to 3 and 5 but tile other names were not mentioned in the complaint and only for the purpose of harassing the other accused, they have been dubbed as accused in this private complaint filed nearly 7 months after the alleged occurrence and, therefore, purposely implicated the proceedings against them has to be quashed and discharge them. The learned counsel Mr. Dinakaran) in support of his argument, relies upon a decision of this Court in Manikandan v. Jayaraman, wherein tile pro ceedings against the accused, whose names were not found in the complaint given to the police, was quashed. That was a case in which the names of certain persons alone were mentioned in the complaint and they alone were alleged to have committed the offence. But later on, when the private complaint was filed, some others also were described as the participants of the crime. But in the present case, on a reference to the complaint given to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Othappanaickenur Police Station on 25.5.1981, it is mentioned that the accused 1 to 3 and 5 and another 50 persons, armed with sticks and aruval, came to his house, that first accused threatened to shoot him with the gun and accused 2, 3 and 5 and the son of one Vellaichamy attacked them with sticks, aruval and stones. In the complaint itself, it is specifically mentioned that apart from the four male persons and 50 others also came armed with deadly weapons to attack him and his family members. As the complaint was given on the same day, the complainant might not have known the names of those persons at the time when he gave the complaint to the police. But as the private complaint was given in January 1982, that is nearly 7 months after the occurrence, there is possibility for the complainant to ascertain the names of others. Therefore, it cannot be stated that for the reason that all the names mentioned in the private complaint do not find a place in the complaint given before the police on 25.5.1981, such of those whose names are not found in the police complaint are entitled to be discharged. In view of the specific mention in the private complaint that 50 others also accompanied the named accused, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable for this case. Therefore the first ground waged for the discharge of those persons will not arise in this case.