Allowed

Thiruselvam v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/5763/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 4(1)(i) of the TNP Act against a TASMAC employee accused of selling liquor without a license. Relying on Kalaiselvan, the court held that continuing the case would amount to abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the final report in S.T.C.No.74 of 2014 and connected miscellaneous petitions were quashed and closed.

Thiruselvam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.04.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.5763 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2014

Thiruselvam

... Petitioner

.vs.

The State, represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, S.S.Kottai Police Station, S.S.Kottai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the Petitioner in final report in S.T.C.No.74 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District in Crime No.132 of 2013, on the file of the respondent Police and to quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Uthayakumar For Respondent :Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the Petitioner in final report in S.T.C.No.74 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District in Crime No.132 of 2013, on the file of the respondent Police and to quash the same.

¶15

2.The Petitioner is an accused for the offence under Section 4 (1)(i) of TNP Act.

¶16

3.According to the prosecution, he was serving liquor without licence and police has seized six bottles of Indian made foreign liquor, near a TASMAC shop. Charge sheet is also filed and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.74 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thirupattur, Sivagangai District.

¶17

¶18

4.The present Petition is filed only on the ground that the sub Inspector of Police concerned has investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet, which is opposed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The learned counsel also relied on 2004(2) CTC 180 in Kalaiselvan .vs. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Erummaipatti Police Station, Namakkal District. The learned counsel also relied on an unreported judgement of this Court dated 15.12.2011 made in Crl.O.P.No.15271 of 2011. In the above order, the learned Single Judge has considered the case of the Petitioner and quashed the proceedings.

¶19

5.Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents Police and perused the records.

¶20

6.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) opposed the same and submitted that the Petitioner has been found selling arrack without licence.

¶21

7.However, considering the fact that the Petitioner was a TASMAC employee and the involvement of six bottles of 180 ML and following the dictum laid down in 2004(2) CTC 180 in Kalaiselvan.vs.The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Erummaipatti Police Station, Namakkal District , which is followed by this Court in the order above mentioned, this Court is of the view that the proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued and it leads to abuse of process of law.

¶22

8.In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the final report in S.T.C.No.74 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District in Crime No.132 of 2013, on the file of the respondent Police is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(C.O)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, S.S.Kottai Police Station, S.S.Kottai,Sivagangai District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to Mr.R.Udhayakumar, Advocate, SR.No.24539 vsn RL/5c – 30/4/2014

¶28

Crl.O.P(MD)No.5763 of 2014

¶29

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

¶30

22.04.2014

Thiruselvam v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruselvam v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Irudhayaprakasam Vs Anitha

V.Sandalmuthuraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

Devanesan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S. Pattu Raj Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Velu Alias Sournavelu, Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Thiagarajan, Vs the Superintendent of Police