V SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C by the injured/fete facto complainant questioning the legality of the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam dated 9.11.2005 made in C.C. No. 389 of 2005 convicting the accused No. 1 and 3 to 6 therein, who figured as respondents 2 and 4 to 7 in the revision case for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323 IPC based on the plea of guilty made by them and the second accused, who figures as third respondent in the criminal revision case for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 325 IPC based on his plea of guilty on the ground that there was an abuse of process of Court, in so far as, according to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer had chosen to file a charge-sheet for simple offences, whereas there were sufficient materials to make out a prima facie case for a graver offence, namely an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the criminal revision case that though there were sufficient materials to show that the respondents 2 to 7 herein (A1 to A6) made an attempt on the life of the petitioner and caused him simple and grievous injuries in such an attempt, the Investigating Officer chose to submit a final report alleging commission of lesser offences triable by the Judicial Magistrate and thus paved the way for the escape of the respondents 2 to 7 from being prosecuted for an offence exclusively triable by a Sessions Court.

(3.) It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the haste in which the case was concluded by the learned Judicial Magistrate by convicting the accused persons accepting their plea of guilty, will amply demonstrate the clandestine method used by the Investigating officer to protect the respondents 2 to 7 from being prosecuted for a sessions offence.