AHMED BASHA Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-39
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on March 05,2019

Ahmed Basha Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J. - (1.) This Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, Vellore District.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arraigned as A1 to A3 and the trial Court has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 294(B), 323 and 353 of IPC. Even according to the case of the prosecution, charge sheet belatedly filed and as such it is barred by limitation, directly hit under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. The alleged crime allegedly committed by the petitioners on 27.08.2010 and initially registered the case for the offence under Section 294(B) and 323 of IPC. Therefore, the respondent ought to have filed final report on or before 31.08.2011. Admittedly, the charge sheet has been filed after 31.08.2011. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed. He further submitted that while filing charge sheet, the respondent added the offence under Section 353 of IPC, that too after lapse of one year and nine months from the date of alleged occurrence. Further he relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Raghunath Laxman Parkale Vs. The State, 1956 CrLJ 987 and, (Vol. 45, C.100) in the case of State Vs. Rehman, 1958 AIR(Raj) 296 and,(Vol.51, V.142) in the case of Thakur Tanti Vs. The State, 1964 AIR(Pat) 493. 2.1.He further submitted that when the charge under Section 353 of IPC framed against a person, he must be at discharging of his official duty at the time of occurrence. Here the second respondent never was discharging his official duty at the time of alleged occurrence took place. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the entire proceedings.
(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that there are totally three accused and the petitioners are A1 to A3. Though initially the case was registered under Section 294(B) and 323 IPC, after conducting detailed investigation, the petitioners are charged for the offences under Sections 294(B), 323, and 353 of IPC. Further he contended that after registering the FIR, alteration report has been filed by the first respondent adding the offence under Section 353 of IPC against the petitioners. Therefore, the entire proceedings cannot be barred by latches. There are specific avernments to attract the offences as against the petitioners and all the points raised by the petitioners have to be established only during the trial and it involves question of facts. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.