The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has discharged a man from a theft case after considering the fact that the Judicial Magistrate had framed charges by keeping the man’s discharge petition pending for more than five years..
The court was hearing the petition filed by Ganesan who had challenged the dismissal of his discharge petition by the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was accused of committing theft and a case was registered against him by the Railway Police, Madurai.
In 2007, a couple from Madurai who were on their way to Chennai on Vaigai Express found that their suitcase was missing. They lodged a complaint with the Railway Police. In 2012, he was arrested by the Railway Police, Coimbatore in another theft case.
It was said that he had given a confession statement. He is said to have confessed to have committed similar offences in nine other cases, including the Madurai case. He was arrested, produced before the Judicial Magistrate and remanded in judicial custody.
The police filed a final report and the same was pending before the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner filed a petition for discharge in 2014. This was objected to by the police in 2014. In 2019, the discharge petition was dismissed.
The main contention of the petitioner was that he was wrongly arrested by the Coimbatore police instead of another Ganesan. He was implicated in various cases registered by the Railway Police in Madurai, Coimbatore, Egmore and Chennai Central.
Justice K. Murali Shankar observed that no doubt the police had taken a stand that the petitioner had made a confession admitting his involvement in nine other theft cases, they had not taken necessary steps to ascertain the identity of the accused.
The court took note of the fact that he was discharged by the court in the Coimbatore case and the other theft cases. The Madurai case was the only case pending against him. The discharge petition in Madurai was filed by the petitioner in 2014. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition in 2019.
The court observed that it is shocking to note that the order was passed after the lapse of more than five years, since the filing of the discharge petition. The judge observed that the court was at a loss to understand as to how the Judicial Magistrate had framed the charges, by keeping the discharge petition pending. The framing of charges is not only improper, it is illegal. The court set aside the order and discharged the petitioner from the case.
