Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 957 (MAD)

Muthiah Pillai v. David Livingston

2015-02-17

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused in a private complaint in S.C.No.246 of 2003, pending on the file of the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil and he is facing prosecution for the commission of the offences under Sections 448 and 326 of IPC. The petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2011 in S.C.No.246 of 2003 under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., praying for discharge on the ground that as against the respondent/complainant, the petitioner herein has lodged a complaint on the file of Boothapandi Police Station and based on his complaint, a case in Crime No.184 of 1996 was registered for the commission of the offences under Sections 147, 332, 333 and 379 of IPC, which also culminated in a charge sheet and now, it is pending trial in S.C.No.103 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Nagercoil and as a counter blast of this case only, the respondent herein has chosen to lodge a private complaint nearly six years from the date of the alleged occurrence. 2. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the private complaint, no reasons, whatsoever, have been adduced as to the belated filing of the private complaint and there is also a discrepancy with regard to the injuries said to have been sustained by the respondent herein and that the respondent is also having antecedent and number of cases came to be registered against him including the case in C.C.No.126 of 2007 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi, wherein he is facing prosecution for the commission of the offences under Sections 294(b), 343 and 506(2) of IPC. 3. Counter was filed opposing the said application and the trial Court found that S.C.No.103 of 2002, which arose out the complaint given by the petitioner herein as well as the present case in S.C.No.246 of 2003 were directed to be taken together by conducting a joint trial and on the merits of the discharge application, found that the points urged by him can be thrashed out only during the course of trial and in this regard, placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in AIR 2000 SC 2754 (Rakesh Kumar Jain v. State) and 2011 CRI.L.J.1225 (Sajjan Kumar v. C.B.I.) and dismissed the discharge petition, vide impugned order dated 08.10.2014 and hence, this revision. 4. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the present criminal prosecution launched against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the lapses pointed out by the respondent/complainant in the application for discharge are tell-tale and, therefore, the lower Court ought to have discharged the petitioner/accused. 5. This Court, on considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and upon going through the materials placed before it, including the impugned order, is of the considered view that the revision is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons. 6. The first point urged is that there is an enormous delay of more than six years in filing the private complaint. In the considered opinion of the Court, it is always open to the respondent/complainant to offer explanation as and when he is confronted with the question and, therefore, discharge cannot be ordered on that ground. 7. The second point urged is with regard to the injuries sustained by the respondent/complainant and it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that according to him, the respondent suffered injury on the thumb and as per the accident register, he suffered injury on the index finger. However, this Court is of the view that as and when the concerned witness enters a box, he or she can be confronted by drawing the attention of the concerned witness to the relevant documents and, therefore, it cannot be cited as a ground for discharge. 8. Insofar as the last ground urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent herein is having antecedent and, therefore, the present complaint is nothing but false and concocted is concerned, it is again a matter for evidence and it is always open to the petitioner/accused to get certified copies of the documents pertain to the antecedents of the respondent/complainant and prevail upon the Trial Court as to the mala fide nature of the prosecution launched against him. 9. The Trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that the points urged on behalf of the petitioner/accused can be agitated only during the course of trial and this Court finds no error or infirmity in the said reasons assigned by the Trial Court. 10. 9. The Trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that the points urged on behalf of the petitioner/accused can be agitated only during the course of trial and this Court finds no error or infirmity in the said reasons assigned by the Trial Court. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage itself, confirming the order dated 08.10.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2011 in S.C.No.246 of 2003, on the file of the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this revision and this Court has not touched upon the merits of the case of the respondent/complainant and the defence to be adduced by the revision petitioner/accused and it is needless to say that the Trial Court has to adjudicate the case based on the quality of the evidence let in before it. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.