A. Jesudoss Inbaraj Vs. Imayavarman and Other - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 4. the learned judicial magistrate, ambattur, however, taking note of the contradictions in the fir, discharge certificate issued by the doctor, as well as the attendance register of the victim, discharged the first respondent by his order dated 4.8.1995 in crl. 5. the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned govt. and satisfied that there was a case to suspect that the first respondent had committed an offence punishable under sections 341 and 326, i. som nath thapa 1996 scc 820. 7. as there is no strong objection by the first respondent with regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned govt. therefore, i am satisfied that the order of the learned judicial magistrate, ambattur dated 4.8.1995 in crl......the order dated 4.8.1995 in crl.m.p.no.2388 of 1995 in c.c.no.201 of 1995 on the file of the learned judicial magistrate, ambattur, chengai m.g.r. district, allowing the petition filed under section 239, cr.p.c. and discharging the first respondent in the above criminal case, namely c.c.no.201 of 1995.3. the first respondent was facing a trial for the offence punishable under section 341 and 326, i.p.c. with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 17.4.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. wherein the first respondent was said to have caused grievous injury on the petitioner herein, who was the victim, complaint in c.c.no.201 of 1995, by using a black stone. however, before the above criminal case was taken up for trial, the first respondent filed a petition under section.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard both the parties.

2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 4.8.1995 in Crl.M.P.No.2388 of 1995 in C.C.No.201 of 1995 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chengai M.G.R. District, allowing the petition filed under Section 239, Cr.P.C. and discharging the first respondent in the above criminal case, namely C.C.No.201 of 1995.

3. The first respondent was facing a trial for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 326, I.P.C. with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 17.4.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. wherein the first respondent was said to have caused grievous injury on the petitioner herein, who was the victim, complaint in C.C.No.201 of 1995, by using a black stone. However, before the above criminal case was taken up for trial, the first respondent filed a petition under Section 239, Cr.P.C. to discharge him.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, however, taking note of the contradictions in the FIR, discharge certificate issued by the doctor, as well as the attendance register of the victim, discharged the first respondent by his order dated 4.8.1995 in Crl.M.P.No.2388 of 1995, aggrieved by which, the petitioner has preferred the above revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Advocate, while supporting the case of the revision petitioner, contends that the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in overlooking the facts staled under Section 162, Cr.P.C., wherein the evidence of the petitioner/victim is clear and unambiguous that the first respondent had committed an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 326, I.P.C. That apart, it is also contended that at the stage of disposing the petition filed under Section 239, Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate ought not to have evaluated the statements mentioned in the FIR and allowed the petition merely because there was some contradictions in the FIR, discharge certificate and the attendance register of the victim.

6. It is further contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have weighed the statements obtained under Section 162, Cr.P.C. and satisfied that there was a case to suspect that the first respondent had committed an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 326, I.P.C. and since sufficient materials are available, the teamed Judicial Magistrate ought not to have allowed the discharge petition. In support of their contentions, they relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa 1996 SCC 820.

7. As there is no strong objection by the first respondent with regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Advocate, I have no option except to decide the matter in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa 1996 See (Crl.) 820 wherein it is held as follows:-

'--- if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.'

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Advocate, the probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into, at the stage of disposing the petition filed under Section 239, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am satisfied that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur dated 4.8.1995 in Crl.M.P.No.2388 of 1995 is illegal and contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, 1996 SCC 820 and hence, the said order is set aside and consequently the matter is remitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, with a direction to dispose of the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. In the result, revision is allowed with the above direction. No costs.