SUNDARAMOORTHY Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 406 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Thanjavur.

(2.) HEARD learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent and also learned counsel for second respondent. The case of the prosecution is that due to enmity between deceased Boopalan and the first accused Murugesan on account of not giving deceased's daughter Gandhimathi in marriage to the first accused, the first accused along with other accused murdered the deceased. Pursuant to complaint made by one Mahalingam a case in Crime No. 114 of 2013 was registered for offences under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C. Pursuant to investigation a charge sheet was filed informing commission of offences under Sections 147, 120B, 34, 342, 342 r/w 114, 302, 302 r/w 120B I.P.C. As the petitioner had not appeared before the trial Court the case against him was split up and the matter was tried in S.C. No. 68 of 2008 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Thanjavur and all but first accused were acquitted by the trial Court. There against the defacto complainant moved Criminal Revision before this Court and the same is still pending in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 892/2007. The first accused preferred Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 490 of 2007 before this Court and under judgment dated 02.08.2012, such appeal was allowed and he stands acquitted.

(3.) AGAINST N.B.W. issued against him by the trial Court, the petitioner has obtained orders of anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P. No. 2093 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The defacto complainant sought cancellation of bail granted in favour of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 6722 of 2008, which was dismissed on 01.09.2009. There against the defacto complainant moved the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 9522 of 2009, which also was dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that the charge against the petitioner is of his having been party to the criminal conspiracy to do away with the deceased. The charge sheet informs that this petitioner while stationed at Dubai had caused the first accused to travel to India towards carrying out the heinous offence. The charge sheet also informs that he had been party to conspiracy when in India and that the murder of the deceased has been planned in meetings in several towns. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner also submits that when all the other accused in the case now stand acquitted, the judgment of acquittal against accused 2 to 9 having been rendered by the trial Court and that of first accused by Division Bench of this Court, this petitioner should not be required to undergo the rigour of trial. There absolutely is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar v. State (2000(1) Crimes 73) informs that where the other accused were acquitted on ground of insufficiency of evidence, the evidence adduced in the case was inseparable and indivisible, one of the accused could not be treated differently. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the charge framed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on decision to similar effect Mohammed Ilias v. State of Karnataka (2001 (4) Crimes 417). Particular reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Tamilmaran v. State (( : 2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1334, wherein it has been observed as follows: