JUDGMENT : 1. On the complaint lodged by Kunjaram, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.73 of 2012 and after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 447, 427, 307 IPC and 3 of PPDL Act against Arockiam and 15 others. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.122 of 2016 and is pending trial before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. While so, Arockiam (A-1) filed Crl.M.P.No.2260 of 2016 in S.C.No.122 of 2016 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. It appears that the Trial Court has dismissed Crl.M.P.No.2260 of 2016 in S.C.No.122 of 2016 on 27.04.2017, challenging which, this revision has been filed with a delay of 141 days. This Court has condoned the delay of 141 days in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.870 of 2018 today. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court had not passed a speaking order in Crl.M.P.No.2260 of 2016 and that a docket order alone has been passed. He took this Court through Page No.51 of the typed-set of papers, wherein, the Trial Court has passed the following order: "Crl.M.P.No.2260/2016 in S.C.No.122/2016 Date: 27.04.2017 Order pronounced. In the result, this petition is dismissed. (sd/-........) Sessions Judge, Sivagangai." 4. On a reading of the above order, it is obvious to this Court that in the 'A' Diary, only the cryptic order will be noted, but, there will be a detailed order on the file of the Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions Court had not passed any detailed order. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is entitled to do complete justice to the parties in a given case. Therefore, this Court wanted to satisfy itself whether there are prima facie materials against the petitioner for framing charge. 5. Therefore, this Court wanted to satisfy itself whether there are prima facie materials against the petitioner for framing charge. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the First Information Report in this case has been given by Kunjaram, the wife of Ramalingam and that in the First Information Report, she has stated that the occurrence in the case had taken place at 03.00 p.m., on 23.09.2012, but, whereas, the AR copy shows that Ramalingam, the husband of the defacto complainant, who is said to have suffered injuries, was admitted in the hospital at 12.05 p.m., on 23.09.2012 and, therefore, the First Information Report is false. He also submitted that another case has been registered against Ramalingam in respect of a different occurrence. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) refuted the contentions. 7. This Court carefully perused the First Information Report. In the First Information Report, the defacto complainant has stated that there were civil disputes between their family and one Ariyaputhiran and Thiyagarajan pending in the Civil Courts and that on 23.09.2012 around 3 O' Clock, the first accused and 15 named persons came to her house, armed with deadly weapons and also brought a JCB with which they razed to the ground her house and also the dwelling units of Parvathi, Prema, Vadivukarasi, Ananthi, Gajendran, etc. She has also stated that the estimated loss would be Rs.50,00,000/-. She has further stated that in this incident, her husband Ramalingam, Prema, Arumugam, Mariappan, Karuppiah and others also suffered injuries and they were admitted to the hospital. 8. On a careful reading of the statement of Ramalingam, he has stated that there were civil disputes between his family and the family of one Ariyaputhiran pending in the Civil Courts in Karaikudi, Devakottai and Sivagangai; that on 23.09.2012 around 10.00 a.m., while he and his wife Kunjaram were in their house, the accused came there under the leadership of Arockiam (the petitioner herein) and they started demolishing their house; that they rushed to the residence of Ananthi, the Councillor of Ward No.20 and asked her to intervene; that when all the people in the Street gathered, the accused went away and that at 10.30 a.m., when he, his wife and his brother Mariappan and others were going on to the main Road, Arockiam and his group intercepted them and attacked them, in which, he and Prema, were injured. In that statement, Ramalingam has implicated this petitioner and has named the others also in the assault. He has further stated that after the assault, he was admitted to the hospital and while he was in the hospital, at 03.00 p.m., he learnt that Arockiam, the petitioner and others had gone to his house with bulldozer and JCB and have completely demolished the houses. Thus, the statement of Ramalingam clearly implicates the petitioner in the offence. 9. The learned counsel submitted that there was no overt act attributed to the petitioner. 10. The fact remains that the petitioner and others are charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 447, 427, 307 IPC and Section 3 of PPDL Act and, therefore, when there is a common object to commit an offence, every member of the unlawful assembly will be responsible for the individual offences committed by a member of the assembly. Therefore, the petitioner cannot escape criminal liability by contending that he had not attacked anybody. However, it is seen that the members of the unlawful assembly had attacked Ramalingam, Prema and others. On the same lines, it is the submission of Prema, who also suffered injuries and was admitted to the Hospital. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police have not been able to show the actual damage to the demolished houses and, therefore, a charge under Section 3 of PPDL Act cannot be framed, since it requires that the damage should be more than Rs.100/-. In this case, even in the First Information Report, Kunjaram has stated that the damage is around Rs.50,00,000/-. Whether she has given an exaggerated version or not is a question of fact which can be tested only in the cross-examination of Kunjaram and not in a discharge application or in a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. In the light of such overwhelming materails against the petitioner, it cannot be stated that there are no prima facie materials for framing charge. 12. In the result, this revision is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, the petitioner shall co-operate with the Trial Court by cross-examining the witnesses on the day they are examined in chief, as directed by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) Scale 542 . Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, the petitioner shall co-operate with the Trial Court by cross-examining the witnesses on the day they are examined in chief, as directed by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) Scale 542 . If he adopts any dilatory tactics, it is always open to the learned Magistrate to remand him to custody, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh reported in 2001(4) SCC 667 . If he absconds, a fresh Information Report can be registered against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. 13. It is made clear that whatever observed above is only for the purpose of deciding the Criminal Revision Case at hand and the Trial Court shall proceed to appreciate the evidence without in any manner being influenced by what is stated above. 14. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case in S.C.No.122 of 2016 expeditiously and complete the same, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.