JAMES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner to to set aside the order dtd. 12/8/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.55822 of 2023 in C.C.No.11626 of 2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.8 of 2015 in C.C. No.6756 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate CCB and CBCID Court at Egmore, Chennai. The 2nd respondent herein is one of the witnesses in the aforesaid case and he has also given a statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. Pending trial, on 31/8/2016 at around 4.30 p.m., while the 2nd respondent herein was resting in the T.V. Room in the Saidapet Court premises, the petitioner is alleged to have abused him with filthy language and assaulted him and also threatened him stating that he should not give any further evidence with regard to an alleged attempt to trespass into the house of the former Chief Justice of Madras High Court, failing which, he will suffer dire consequences. Hence, the 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent police and based on which, the case in Crime No.1423 of 2016 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Ss. 341, 24(b), 323, 506(1) of IPC and upon completion of investigation, the 1strespondent police filed the final report and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.7235 of 2017 and subsequently, based on the petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein, the case was transfered to CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and re-numbered as C.C.No.11626 of 2022. While so, the 2nd respondent herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.55822 of 2023 before the CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, under Sec. 216 Cr.P.C. to frame additional charge for the offence under Sec. 195A of IPC in the Crime No.1423 of 2016 in C.R.No.11626 of 2022 stating that the petitioner had also threatened him to give false evidence. The learned Magistrate after considering the same, allowed the petition by order dtd. 12/8/2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused has filed the present revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ingredients for the offence under Sec. 195A IPC has not been made out. Even in the original complaint, the 2nd respondent has only stated that the petitioner threatened him not to give evidence failing which, his life would be taken away and that there is no allegations for the offence under Sec. 195A IPC. Even in the earlier statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., from the 2nd respondent there is no such material to attract the ingredients of Sec. 195A IPC. The list of witnesses shown as eyewitnesses have also not stated anything about the ingredients of Sec. 195A IPC. The learned Magistrate failed to consider the ingredients of Ss. 191 and 195A IPC and allowed the petition. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.