Disposed

Senthil Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Jun 2015CRL OP/14712/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Judicial Magistrate, Chidambaram, to file a pending final report in a criminal case and assign a number. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Court for quashing the case thereafter, and the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Judicial Magistrate to file the final report and assign a number; liberty granted to approach for quashing eventually.

Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 25.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP No.14712 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

Senthil Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs
1.State rep. By Inspector of Police,
Chidambaram City Police Station,
Chidambaram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Crime Branch CID,
Cuddalore
3.Mrs.Unnamalai @ Rajamani Ammal ...Respondents
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the first information report
in Crime No.261 of 2009, presently in the file of the second
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kotteeswaran
For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶8

2.It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement between themselves and therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the F.I.R., in Crime No.261 of 2009 on the file of the second respondent.

¶9

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

¶10

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submits that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram on 29.11.2013 however, so far, the learned Magistrate has not taken the same on file.

¶11

4.Under such circumstances, this Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram, to take the final report filed by the second respondent on file, if not already taken and assign a number and thereafter, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach this Court for quashing of the said case.

¶12

5.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶13

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jbm To

¶14

1.The Inspector of Police, Chidambaram City Police Station, Chidambaram.

¶15

2.The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Cuddalore.

¶16

3.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram.

¶17

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶18

5.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶19

1 CC to Mr.E.Kotteeswaran, Advocate SR.No. 31972

¶20

Crl.OP No.14712 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 KJI (CO) PSI (03.07.2015)

¶21

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

Senthil Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthil Kumar 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

R.Sunder Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Arumugam Vs State by

E.Sureshkumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Tmt.P.K.S.Murugambal Vs State, Rep.by Inspector of

Settu Vs State Rep.by the Inspector

Thiru.B.Prakash Kumar, Vs M/S.B.M.M.Jewellary Hall