P PAKALAVAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has been arrayed as A1 has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against him for the offence under sections 304[part II],326,324 r/w 34 IPC pending in PRC. No. 1/2008 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.

(2.) MR. R. Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even as per the materials available on record, taken in its entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is contended that the case of the prosecution is to the effect that the petitioner, without obtaining proper permission from the concerned competent authority has ordered firing which resulted in the death of one person and injuries to nine persons. The learned Senior Counsel contended that as per the complaint in this case, it is specifically stated that firing was ordered only by the Inspector of Police, who has been arrayed as A2 and as such, the question of ordering firing by the petitioner not at all arises. It is further contended that even as per the statements recorded from the official witnesses by the Revenue Divisional Officer, only at the instance of the other accused, viz. , A2, firing was ordered and fired by A3 and A4 resulted in the alleged occurrence causing the death of a person and injuries to 9 persons. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings as far as the petitioner is concerned, is liable to be quashed.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel would further submit that in the departmental proceedings in respect of the same identical charge and allegations, the petitioner has been exonerated by the department by order dated 13. 03. 2008 in G. O. [2d] No. 136 Home [police 2] Department. Therefore, it is contended that in view of exoneration of the petitioner from the charge leveled against him in the departmental proceedings, the question of allowing the criminal proceedings to continue not at all arises. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. S. RAJYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR reported in 1996 SCC [cri. ] 897 for the proposition that once the accused is exonerated in the departmental proceedings on identical charge, the criminal case instituted on such identical charge and allegation is liable to be quashed.