Dismissed

Settu v. State Rep.by the Inspector

Madras HC25 Jun 2015CRL OP/26156/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under Section 366 IPC for kidnapping and forced marriage. The Court held that sufficient materials disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, following Supreme Court precedent. Investigation was directed to be completed within six months.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; direction to expeditiously conduct investigation and file final report within six months.

Settu Vs State Rep.by the Inspector — 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.26156 of 2013
1.Settu
2.Nallathambi
3.Mohanraj
4.Ranganathan ...Petitioners
Vs
1.State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
All Women's Police Station,
Bhavani, Erode District,
Pin Code – 638 301.
2.Venkatesan ...Respondents
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to Crime No.9/2011 on
the file of the All Women Police Station, Bhavani and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For R.1 : Mr.C.Emalias,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R.2 : Mr.N.Chinnaraj

¶6

ORDER

¶7

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 30.04.2015, at request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was adjourned to today (25.06.2015) finally “for orders”. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent and this Court also perused the records carefully.

¶8

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

¶9

2.The petitioner seeks to quash the case in Crime No.9/2011 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Bhavani. On a complaint lodged by one Venkatesan, the respondent police registered the above case for offence under Section 366 I.P.C., against four accused/the petitioners herein.

¶10

3.The allegation made by the defacto complainant in the F.I.R., is that, his daughter Tamilselvi, aged about 17 years was kidnapped and was forcibly married to the first accused by name Settu with the act and connivance of other accused.

¶11

4.Since, there are sufficient materials disclosing commission of cognizable offence, the F.I.R., cannot be quashed, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana V. Bhajan lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) .

¶12

5.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the first respondent to expeditiously conduct the investigation and file final report, if not already filed, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jbm To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women's Police Station, Bhavani, Erode District, Pin Code – 638 301. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.OP No.26156 of 2013 SVI (CO) PSI (02.07.2015)

¶13

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

Settu v. State Rep.by the Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Settu v. State Rep.by the Inspector

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

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

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

R.Giridharan Vs the Inspector of Police