Dismissed

A.M.Syed Abuthakir v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/4860/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash an FIR. Instead of deciding on merits, the Court directed the petitioner and de-facto complainant to produce records and evidence with the police. The police were directed to analyze documents and conduct a fair investigation.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief to quash the FIR was granted. Direction issued to produce documents with police and conduct investigation.

A.M.Syed Abuthakir Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.04.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)NO.4860 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶7

A.M.Syed Abuthakir ...Petitioner

¶8

.vs.

¶9

1.The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, (Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell), Theni District, Theni. (In Crime No.48 of 2013).

¶10

2.s.Subburaj ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.48 of 2013 pending on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal.

¶12

For Petitioner :M/s.N.Satheeshkumar For Respondent-1 :Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) For Respondent-2 :M/s.P.Vishnuvarthan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.48 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 120(b), 406, 420,464 and 471 of IPC, pending on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal.

¶15

2.Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthan, learned counsel takes notice for the de-facto complainant/second respondent.

¶16

3.Since this matter is concerning the documentary evidence, without going into the merits of the matter, the Criminal Original petition is disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner as well as to the de-facto complainant to appear before the first respondent/Police and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ produce their records and evidence and the first respondent is directed to receive and analyse all those documents, and conduct a fair and unbiased investigation by giving sufficient opportunities to both sides

¶17

¶18

and file a final report. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶20

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, (Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell), Theni District, Theni. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Advocate, Sr.No. 22622 +1cc to Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan Advocate, Sr.No. 22327 vsn AA/07.05.2014/2p- 5c/

¶22

Crl.O.P(MD)NO.4860 of 2014 10.04.2014

¶23

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

A.M.Syed Abuthakir v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Syed Abuthakir 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

Rajkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Murugadoss Vs Chithra

Sakthivel Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Anaiyappan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

C.Mohanadhas Vs the Inspector of Police