Dismissed

Noble Thomas v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Nov 2014CRL OP/30099/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that the petitioner's absence during the trial and the acquittal of co-accused does not justify quashing the case against him, especially given his challenge to the court's authority.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Noble Thomas Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 13.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.OP No.30099 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

Noble Thomas ..Petitioner Vs State rep. Inspector of Police, Madhukarai Police Station, Coimbatore. ..Respondent

¶8

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records culminating in the filing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.152 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Coimbatore and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner :Mr.K.F.Manavalan For R.1 :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶10

Seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.152 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Coimbatore, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶11

2.This petition has come up today for admission. 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.Originally, there were four accused in the case, against whom the final report has been filed. But, during the trial of the case, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court. The case against the rest of the accused was tried and it is stated by the petitioner that they were acquitted by the trial Court.

¶13

4.So far as the petitioner is concerned, according to him, there are no substantive allegations and further, since, the main accused in the case has been acquitted by the trial Court, no purpose will be served in trying the petitioner herein alone. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

5.In my considered opinion, it is not so. There are materials on record such as the confession of the rest of the accused and the statements of witnesses implicating the petitioner herein in the said crime. It may be true that the other accused have been acquitted by the trial Court but, it is no ground to quash the said proceedings in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein is concerned.

¶15

6.Here, in this case, the petitioner all along absented himself from attending the trial of the case. After having waited for the result of the trial as against the other accused and after coming to know that the case has ended in acquittal of the other accused, now, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the said proceedings pending against him.

¶16

7.In my considered opinion, a person like the petitioner who has challenged the very authority of the law and Court cannot expect this Court to use its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the said case.

¶17

8.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jbm To 1.The Inspector of Police, Madhukarai Police Station, Coimbatore. 2. The Additional Sessions Judge, and Special Jduge, Essential Commodities Act, Coimbatore. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr.K.F.Manavalan, Advocate SR.54091 Crl.OP No.30099 of 2014 VD(CO) Eu 12.12.14

¶18

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

Noble Thomas v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noble Thomas 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

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

G.Sumathi Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Selvam Vs Kaurppiah @ Gandhi

Rajadurai Vs P.Ramarathina

M.Venkatesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.Benedict Saraben Vs the Inspector of Police