M.Arumugam v. State by
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings where the defacto complainant clarified she was assaulted by hands, not iron rods. The court directed the trial court to conclude the case within two months on priority.
What did the court decide?
Trial court directed to complete trial within two months; defacto complainant directed to cooperate and appear before Magistrate under threat of coercive steps.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 24.06.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.OP.No. 13231 of 2015
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
1.M.Arumugam
2.A.Boopathy
3.A.Raj ...Petitioners/ Accused
Vs
1.State by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
J-9, Thoraipakkam Police Station,
Thoraipakkam,
Chennai – 600 097.
(Crime No.592 2009) ...1st Respondent/ Complainant
2.Kanniammal ...2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C.No.533 of 2012 on
the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and quash the
same.
For Petitioners :Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For R1 :Mr.C.Emalias
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : M/s.Veeramani
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
final report in C.C.No.533 of 2012 on the file of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
2.Heard Mr.M.Saravanakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the defacto complainant had given a complaint stating that she was assaulted by the accused with iron rods and that she https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ got seriously injured. Later, the respondent Police have recorded
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash criminal proceedings due to discrepancies in the initial complaint regarding the weapon used in the assault.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M. Arumugam
- petitioner
A. Boopathy
- petitioner
A. Raj
- respondent
State by The Sub Inspector of Police
- respondent
Kanniammal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court