Dismissed

S.K.S.Anvardeen v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Nov 2014CRL OP/10374/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a Crl.O.P. to quash an FIR for cheating and forgery. The prosecutor opined the investigation was complete but the negative report was not filed. The Court held that quashing at this stage did not arise and directed the police officer to file the report within four weeks before dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to not file the report before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

S.K.S.Anvardeen Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.10374 of 2009 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶7

S.K.S.Anvardeen .. petitioner

¶8

1.The Inspector of Police, Mannargudi Police Station, Mannargudi Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

¶9

Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R.No.339/2008 dated 04.05.2008 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶10

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.339/208 on the file of the first respondent police for offence under Sections 420, 462, 12(b) I.P.C. Seeking to quash the said case, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

¶11

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶12

3.When this matter came up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the investigation has been completed and the case has been referred to as “mistake of fact” in R.C.S.No.6/2014. But, the said negative report has not yet been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

4.In view of the said position, question of quashing the F.I.R., at this stage does not arise. Except issuing a direction to the first respondent to file the report before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, no other relief could be granted in this petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar.
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
jbm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Mannargudi Police Station,
Mannargudi Taluk, Tiruvarur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 CC To Mr.P.Vijendran, Advocate SR NO.54123
Crl.O.P.No.10374 of 2009
ev[co]
gp/24.11.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.K.S.Anvardeen v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.S.Anvardeen v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.N.Doss Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

A.Ziahudeen Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Nagarajan Vs N.Sujatha

K.Selvam Vs Kaurppiah @ Gandhi

K.Selvam Vs Kaurppiah @ Gandhi

G.Durairaj Vs the Commissioner of Police