LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

joint complaint

(Querist) 05 August 2008 This query is : Resolved 
Is complaint by two persons maintainable?
I have come across a Madras High Court Judgement titled as " R.Krishnamurthy v. M.P.Raja" 1989 L.W.( Cr.)186 at 187. I am in Punjab, hence have not access to above law journal. Can you help?
Srinivas.B.S.S.T (Expert) 06 August 2008
A complaint by any number of persons if it is under 190 (1) (a) seeking the magistrate to refer the same under 156(3) to the police for investigation is maintainable.
mintu (Expert) 06 August 2008
Yes a joint complaint is maintainable. see clause(d)of section 2 of Cr.P.C. No requirement is given as such number of person(s).
podicheti.srinivas (Expert) 06 August 2008
I am here with forwarding you the judgement you have asked for,hope it will be of use .
1989-Crimes-2-353 , 1989 (TLS)1215563

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Coram : David Annoussamy, Janarthanam

Criminal Appeal 483 Of 1984

(NOVEMBER 22, 1988)

KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. STATE



JANARTHNNAM, J.


( 1 ) ACCUSED 1 and 2 appeal.

( 2 ) ACCUSED 1 was found guilty of the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. , convicted there under and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused 2 was found guilty of the offence under Section 324, I P. C. , convicted there under and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Accused 2 who was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109, I. P. C. and accused 3, who was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. , were found not guilty and acquitted of the same. Accused 1 to 3 were also found not guilty in respect of the charge under Section 341 I. P. C. and acquitted. Accused 1 was found not guilty of the charge under Section 326, I. P. C. and was acquitted of the same. No appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused in respect of the aforesaid charges had been preferred. The conviction and sentence of accused 1 and 2 are challenged in this appeal.

( 3 ) THE pith and substance of the case of the prosecution as culled out from the materials placed on record are as follows:

(i) The backdrop and setting for the occurrence, which happened on 8-10-1983, at 8- 30 A. M. in the village called Pandrimalai, situated 70 KM5. away from Kannivadi Police Station, was provided by the incident in which P. W. 4, senior paternal aunt's daughter P. W. 1 got injured at the hands or accused 1, half an hour prior to the occurrence. The igniting cause for accused 1 resorting to beat P. W. 4 was this P. W. 4, residing adjacent to the house of accused 1. on the early morning of the day of the occurrence, swept the front court-yard of her house as usual. While so doing, the dung of the dogs found scattered therein was swept and pushed aside in front of the house of Accused-i. Accused 1 felt that such a mischief had been perpetrated wantonly by P. W. 4. So, he picked up a quarrel with her and a wordy altercation ensued between them. During the wordy quarrel, accused 1 hit on her head with a stick M. O. 5. On receipt of the hit, she sustained a bleeding injury and fell down fainted.
(ii) On hearing the incident, P. W. 1 rushed to the house of accused 1 to question the propriety of his beating P. W. 4. Accused 1 is non-else than the brother-in-law of P. W. 1. On P. W. ls arrival at the scene, accused 1 obviously afraid of P. W. 1 (a person prone to violence) went inside his house and bolted the door, P. W. 1 finding accused 1 concealing his presence, abused him in filthy language for the cowardly act of beating P. W. 4, a woman and left the place towards the arrack shop. Accused 2, brother, of accused-i felt aggrieved at the abuse of his brother by P. W. 1. So accused 2 rushed towards P. W. 1 arming himself with a VANGUARUVAL and made an attempt to cut P. W. 1 on his forehead. P. W. 1 was stated to have warded off the same with his left hand and consequently, the cut landed on his left hand causing a bleeding incised injury. Then P. W. 1 and accused 2 fought with each other and rolled on the ground. On seeing the lame, Kandasamy, sister's son of P. W. 1, came there to the rescue of P. W. 1. Accused 3, the other brother of accused i, is also stated to have rushed to the spot and caught hold of the hands of Kandasamy from behind, so as to prevent him from going to the rescue of P. W. 1. At this juncture, accused 1 came running with a bitchuva M. O. 1 and stabbed on the chest of Kandasamy. He again aimed a stab on him. The victim Kandasamy wriggled out and in that process, the stab fell on the left hand of accused 3. On receipt of the stab, Kandasamy fell down. Thereafter, accused 1 stabbed on the back of P. W. i, while he was sitting over accused 2. In the meantime, a scuf
K.C.Suresh (Expert) 07 August 2008
Number of complainants are immeterial
arunprakaash.m. (Expert) 07 August 2008
well done mr. srinivas


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :





Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query