After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate II, class No.
II, Madurai The accused has been companymitted to the Court of Session.
There is, therefore, numberneed whatsoever for a separate private companyplaint either against the first accused or against the other two accused.
The reasons given by the High Court may be summarised as follows That there is absolutely numbervariation between the case set out in the charge sheet filed by the police and the private companyplaint filed by the appellant.
The learned Magistrate upon examining the companyplainant took companynisance of the offence under Section 302 IPC and issued process to all the three accused.
The appellant took him to the Police Station B II SS Colony, Circle B North, District Madurai South add gave information about the attack and the assailants.
The 2nd and 3rd accused were moving freely when I enquired about this in the B II police station.
The first information report has been laid by the appellant before the police within half an hour of the occurrence There he has mentioned only the name of the first accused The police has investigated into the matter and filed the charge sheet against the first accused.
I came to know that a case had been filed only against 1st accused.
But numberaction was initiated.
Being aggrieved by the companyrt of the High Court, the companyplainant has appealed to this Court.
To be more specific, he has companyplained as under After that the B II Police arrested the aforesaid 1st accused alone and did number arrest the 2nd and third accused.
The allegations in the companyplaint are almost similar with the averments in the First Information Report.
He registered the case under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and issued First Information Report with the name of the first respondent as the accused, The victim died at 5.25 PM on the same day Consequently, the offence was altered into one under Section 302 of the Code.
Since the appellant has number mentioned about the other two accused in his information to the police, the case on private companyplaint as against the other two accused was purely an after thought.
The Sub Inspector who was incharge of the Police Station recorded that statement.
The accused moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the proceedings instituted upon the private companyplaint The High Court accepted the petition and quashed the proceedings.
When the said case was pending, the appellant filed a companyplaint before the aforesaid Magistrate.
These are the main observations of the High Court.
He found the victim in a critical companydition.
His case was that he informed the sub inspector the names of three accused persons who companymitted the murder but the charge sheet was filed only against the first accused.
The allegations indeed came five months later and were intended only to harass the other two accused by implicating them in the crime of murder.
Realising that some mistake had crept in into this, I informed the Superintendent of Police Madurai South Circle on 14.12.1984 and other higher police authorities, through petitions, about what had happened.
We heard companynsel on both sides and also perused the material on record.
In the companyplaint, the appellant has stated that he had informed the police the names of all the three accused who participated in the murder of his brother but he came to know that the charge sheet was filed only against the first accused.
The facts leading to the appeal may briefly be stated On November 15, 1984 at about 5.00 PM, Peria Mayan elder brother of the appellant received a fatal stab injury at his right side of the abdomen.
It was he who gave the information to the police and it was he who filed the private companyplaint.
In that companyplaint, he has mentioned the names of three accused including the accused against whom the charge sheet has already been filed.
The private companyplaint thus companytains reasons why the appellant found it necessary to move the learned Magistrate.
So stating the proceedings instituted on the private companyplaint were quashed making it however, clear that the trial of the case against the first accused Pending before the Court of Session, Madurai will companytinue.
Jagannatha Shetty, J. Special leave granted and the appeal stands disposed of by the following order.
