Dismissed

P.Chandran v. Palaniammal

Madras HC4 Mar 2015CRL OP/6328/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought alteration of an FIR under Article 226/Section 482 Cr.P.C., claiming his wife was wrongly named. The Court held the FIR was based on the complaint alleging instigation by the wife, dismissed the plea to alter the FIR, and directed the police to file a final report within three months.

What did the court decide?

FIR registered against wife cannot be altered; police directed to file final report within 3 months.

P.Chandran Vs Palaniammal — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6328 of 2014

¶6

P.Chandran .. Petitioner
versus
1.Palaniammal
2.M.Varadaraj
3.K.Ragupathy
4.Rathinam
5.Ravindran
6.Raghu
7.The Inspector of Police
B-13, Pothanur Police Station(L&O)
Coimbatore 641 023
Crime No.1264/2013 .. Respondents
PRAYER: Crl.O.P., filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for a direction
to the 7 th respondent police to alter the Crime No.1264 of 2013 on the
file of the respondent as per the allegations made in CMP.No.6379 of
2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.7, Coimbatore.
For petitioner : Mr.B.Ramamoorthy
For respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja,
Addl.Public Prosecutor for R7
ORDER

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner gave a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.7, Coimbatore in Crime No.6379/2013 and the same was forwarded to B-13 Pothanur Police Station (L&O) and they registered a case in Crime No.1264 of 2013 on the basis of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that in the complaint given before the Magistrate, the petitioner named 6 persons as accused and while registering the case in Crime No.1264/2013, the respondent arrayed the petitioner's wife as accused and the other persons named in the complaint given before the Magistrate were not named as accused. He also submitted that his wife's name has been

¶8

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

¶9

wrongly mentioned as accused instead of the names given by the petitioner in the list. He therefore, submitted that the F.I.R., registered in Crime No.1264/2013 on the file of B-13 Pothanur Police Station be altered and F.I.R., may be directed to be registered against the accused named in the complaint given in Crl.M.P.No.6379 of 2013.

¶10

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A reading of the complaint given in Crl.M.P.No.6379 of 2013 makes it clear that though the petitioner named 6 persons as accused, he made allegations against his wife and at the instigation of his wife, other accused threatened the petitioner. In the F.I.R., also, the same complaint is taken as such and having regard to the allegation made against his wife, she has been made as an accused and other accused were not named and the F.I.R., has been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner. The Police will include other accused on the basis of the investigation and at this stage, it cannot be stated that the Police had not acted as per the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate and wrongly implicated the wife of the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. The 7^th respondent-Police is directed to file final report in Crime No.1264/2013 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nvsri To 1.The Inspector of Police B-13, Pothanur Police Station(L&O) Coimbatore 641 023 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.7, Coimbatore. 3.-do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.B.Ramamoorthy ,Advocate, SR.No.12050 Crl.O.P.No.6328 of 2014 vd(co)pmk.19.3.2015

¶11

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

P.Chandran v. Palaniammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chandran v. Palaniammal

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

G.Kalarani Vs the Inspector of Police

Govindharaj, M/38 Yrs Vs the Director General of

T.S.Narasimha Raju Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Sankarasubramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police

C.Subathra Banu F/a 30 Yrs Vs State Rep by

Muthukumar Vs State Rep by