Judgment:
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in CC.No.102 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magaistrate No.II, Ramnad and quash the same.)
1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings in CC.No.102 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magaistrate No.II, Ramnad and quash the same.
2. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by Nesa Kumar/2nd respondent, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.281 of 2014 on 10.11.2014 under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC against Naganathan and Kaleeswaran and after completing the investigation, also filed a final report in C.C.No.102 of 2015 for the said offences, challenging which the petitioner, who are accused, are before this Court.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.11.2014, the accused attacked the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant got admitted in the Government Hospital for serious injuries. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the respondent police have investigated the case and filed a final report in Crime No.281 of 2014.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the complaint given by the 1st petitioner, a case in Crime No.94 of 2015 was registered on 11.05.2015 under Sections 448, and 307 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act against one Muniyaraj, Nesakumar and Yogarajan.
5. On reading of the FIR in Crime No.94 of 2015, it is alleged that on 09.11.2014, Muniyaraj, Nesakumar and Yogarajan came to the office of Naganathan and attacked him, but he escaped without any injuries. It is further seen that the FIR in Crime No.94 of 2015 has been registered pursuant to the direction issued by this Court Crl.O.P.(MD) 54 of 2015, whereas in the present case in C.C.No.102 of 2015, Police have examined Dr.Subalakshmi, who had given treatment to Muniyaraj, Son of the defacto complainant in the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram and has opined that injuries are grievous in nature.
6. Under such circumstances, this Court cannot quash the proceedings in C.C.No.102 of 2015, since there are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be looked into in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S.Krishnamoorthy v. Chellammal, reported in AIR 2015 SC 3182.
7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points before the Trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.