Disposed

K.Saravana Kumar v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC15 Feb 2016CRL OP/7538/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Crl.O.P. filed to quash an FIR registered against petitioners accused of 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act offences. The court quashed the Cirl.O.P. giving liberty to petitioners to file a petition regarding the consequent Criminal Complaint.

What did the court decide?

Crl.O.P. disposed; liberty granted to file petition to quash proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2014.

K.Saravana Kumar Vs State Rep by Its — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7538 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

1.K.Savarana Kumar
2.K.Ramesh Kumar
3.Prasana
4.Gokila
5.Udhayakumar
6.Gandhimathi .. Petitioners/ A1 to A6
Vs.
1.State:
Rep. By its Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Vedharanyam, Nagapattinam District.
2.K.Umarani .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Crime No.03/2013 dated 13.09.2013 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Vedharanyam, Nagapattinam District and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Vijendran For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor (For R1) Mr.M.Sivakumar (For R2)

¶9

The petitioners who are the accused in FIR.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police has come forward with this petition to quash the FIR registered against them for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 506(ii) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶10

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

¶11

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶12

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that already case has been taken on file in C.C.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedharanyam.

¶13

4.Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to file a petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2014. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶14

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
cse
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Vedharanyam, Nagapattinam District
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Vedharanyam, Nagapattinam District.

¶15

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

¶16

1 cc to Mr.P. Vijendran, advocate, Sr. 9905

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.7538 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 BVR (CO) kk 4/3

¶18

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

K.Saravana Kumar v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Saravana Kumar v. State Rep by Its

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Natarajan

Mr.D.Raman Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kuppusamy Gounder Vs State by

V.N.Kumar @ Senkuttuvan Vs The Inspector General of

V.S.Prabhu Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kalavathy Vs R.Palani