Dismissed

Somasundaram v. the State Rep by

Madras HC6 Nov 2014CRL OP/10506/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash an FIR. The court held that the petitioner's ground regarding the lack of a preliminary enquiry prior to registration was untenable in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Lalita Kumari. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed as the ground raised regarding the lack of preliminary enquiry did not survive.

Somasundaram Vs the State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 06.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.OP No.10506 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

¶6

Somasundaram

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Vs 1.The State represented by Inspector of Police, All Women Police station, Perur, Coimbatore District. 2.N.Kavi Priya ..Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in connection with Crime No.10 of 2013 dated 11.04.2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Perur, Coimbatore District and quash the same as illegal and improper. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Kingston Jerold For R.1 :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶9

Seeking to quash the case in Crime No.10 of 2013 dated 11.04.2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Perur, Coimbatore District, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶10

2.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.

¶11

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on completing investigation, charge sheet has already been laid by the respondent police before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶12

4.On hearing the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before registering the F.I.R., no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preliminary enquiry was held by the respondent police. As per the

¶13

judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013 (6) CTC 353), no such preliminary enquiry is required in all cases. Hence, the only ground raised by the petitioner does not survive. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jbm
To
1.Inspector of Police,
All Women Police station,
Perur, Coimbatore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.OP No.10506 of 2014
CNR(CO)
eu 19.11.14

¶15

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

Somasundaram v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somasundaram v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Vasudevan Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Devendran Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Kavitha Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Karuppathal Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mrs.S.Shobana Devi, F/a 28 Yrs Vs the Commissioner of Police

V.Mahalakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police