G.Alagesan, v. Ilangovan
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner challenged a private complaint as a mistake of fact. The court directed the government advocate to produce the relevant case diary by a specified date for perusal before deciding on the quashing petition. No immediate relief was granted.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifth day of June Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT
THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA
CRL OP(MD) No.16042 of 2011
G.ALAGESAN
..PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.11
Vs ILANGOVAN ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein that the High Court will be pleased to call for the records in *CC.No.173 of 2012 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional District Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner and pass such further or other orders.
Order: This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.P.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on behalf of the State, the court made the following order:-
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrayed as A11 on a private complaint given by one Elangovan as a de-facto complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.197 of 2009 has been registered on 11.07.2009 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and the same has been referred as mistake of fact and he is entitled to file a final report as per provisions of Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders. He has not committed any offence and the ingredients of Sections 166 and 217 of IPC has not made out. Hence, he has prayed for quashing the private complaint. While a private complaint has been registered on 11.07.2009 and it was closed as mistake of fact on the same day, the case diary relating to crime No.197 of 2009 is necessary for perusal.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the case diary relating to Crime No. 197 of 2009 needs to be examined to decide on the quashing of the petition.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
A. Alagesan
- respondent
Ilangovan
Coram
R. MalA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court