The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against the petitioners under Sections 342, 384, 323, and 506(ii) IPC, holding that the FIR prima facie disclosed cognizable offences under State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal.
Petition to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH
Crl.O.P. No.22938 of 2011
vs.
1 State represented by:
The Inspector of Police
T-1, Ambattur Police Station
Ambattur
Chennai 600 053
(Cr. No.789 of 2011) 1 st Respondent/Complainant
2 S. Rajan 2 nd Respondent/Defacto Compalainant
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records relating to Crime No.789 of 2011 dated 21.08.2011 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station, Chennai 53 and quash the same.
For petitioners Mr. K. Murali Babu
For R1 Mr. C. Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to Crime No.789 of 2011 dated 21.08.2011 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station, Chennai 53 and quash the same.
2 On the alleged complaint by one Rajan, the second respondent herein, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.789 of 2011 on 22.08.2011 under Sections 342, 384, 323 and 506(ii) IPC against the petitioners herein, challenging which, the petitioners are before this Court.
3 On a reading of the FIR, it is seen that the de facto complainant is running a waste paper mart in Ambattur. On 21.08.2011, one Joseph Samuel (A1), who is said to be the Secretary of a political outfit, had come with his henchmen to the waste paper mart of the de facto complainant and had taken away 60 kgs. of copper scrap materials, a two wheeler, viz., TVS XL Super and a mobile phone, after assaulting the de facto complainant and also intimidating him. It is also stated that they had abducted the de facto complainant in a car and had kept him in illegal confinement.
4 Since the complaint prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence, the same cannot be quashed in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335].
Resultantly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1 The Inspector of Police
T-1, Ambattur Police Station
Ambattur
Chennai 600 053
2 The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court
Chennai - 600 104
tm(CO)
cp(28/12/2016)
Crl.O.P. No.22938 of 2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be allowed to quash an FIR when prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersApplied¶20
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J. Joseph Samuvel
J. Benjamin
Murali
State
S. Rajan
P.N. Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
