Dismissed

Dr.S.P.Ilango v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Dec 2015CRL OP/26349/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition to quash an FIR for cheating, the High Court dismissed the plea as premature. The court held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. applies only if allegations do not constitute an offence or there is a legal flaw, especially when investigation is incomplete. The petition is allowed to be filed later after the final report.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to work out remedy after filing of final report; police directed to complete investigation within three months.

Dr.S.P.Ilango Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.26349 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

Dr.S.P.Ilango ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State, rep. by
Inspector of police,
District Crime Branch,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
2. Adhavan ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to call for the records in FIR.No.51 of 2013 on the file
of the respondent police and quash the same as illegal, in so
far as this petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.G.Santhoshkumar
For respondents : Mr.C.Emalias,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R.1

¶7

ORDER

¶8

The present criminal original petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.51 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal, in so far as this petitioner is concerned.

¶9

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

¶10

It is the case of the prosecution that the second respondent / de facto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to one John Peter for securing MBBS seat for his daughter. The said John Peter expressed to the second respondent that he knows the petitioner herein and other accused and through one Jai Singh working in CMC, the said John Peter has received a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-. But, the said John Peter has not secured medical seat for his daughter and cheated the second respondent. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint with the first respondent police and on the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered Crime No.51 of 2013 as against the petitioner along with other accused for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. To quash the same, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire allegation is only as against the said John Peter and so far as this petitioner is concerned, no allegation is made against him.

¶12

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in the complaint, a specific allegation is made against this petitioner. Further, he has submitted that the investigation is still pending.

¶13

However, I am of the considered opinion that the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the first information report is very limited, since the investigation is not yet completed. The first information report can be quashed only if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence or if there is any legal flaw. By applying the said legal principles, I do not find any valid ground to quash the first information report pending in Crime No.51 of 2013. Hence, I am of the opinion that the present OP is a pre-mature one and I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.

¶14

In fine, the criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy after filing of the final report. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a

¶15

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

¶16

final report as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶18

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sbi
To
1. The Inspector of police,
District Crime Branch,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.P.G.Santhoshkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.69042
Crl.O.P.No.26349 of 2013
KSJ(CO)
CA(30/12/2015)

¶19

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

Dr.S.P.Ilango v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.S.P.Ilango 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

N.C.Ashkar Vs State by

Muthukrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

V.K.Sasi Priya Vs J.Jeyakanthan

Muthumani Vs the Inspector of Police

Arockiasamy Vs Michal Rajathi @ Lavanya

R.Arivalagan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police