Allowed

B.Deepan Chakravarthi, v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC19 Jun 2017CRL OP/26633/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed proceedings in a criminal case against the petitioner, identified as the 13th accused. The court noted no specific complaint or clinching evidence existed to establish guilt and the Additional Public Prosecutor agreed.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in P.R.C.No.24 of 2015 against the petitioner were quashed and the Criminal Original Petition was allowed.

B.Deepan Chakravarthi, Vs the State Rep. by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.26633 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.13361 and 13362 of 2016

¶8

B.Deepan Chakravarthi ..Petitioner/13th Accused

¶9

1.The State rep.by its Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶10

2.M.Kalaiarasan ..Respondents/Complainant De-facto

¶11

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Jotheeswaran

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore.

¶15

2.Despite repeated opportunities given, there is no representation for the second respondent, who is stated to be the de facto complainant in respect of Crime No.506 of 2013.

¶16

3.When this Criminal Original Petition was taken up, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent has fairly submitted that there is no specific or particular complaint recorded against the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as 13^th accused.

¶17

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

¶18

4.On a perusal of the First Information Report as well as the other connected materials, it is seen that there is no clinching evidence so as to point out the guilt of the petitioner herein. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a Law Graduate and that there is no clinching evidence or a particular complaint recorded against the petitioner herein, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore, in respect of the petitioner herein, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
KM
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Vadavalli Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate-VI,
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai-600 104

¶20

1 cc to Mr.K.P. Jotheeswaran, Advocate Sr.43157

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.26633 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.13361 and 13362 of 2016 SJ(CO) EU 29.6.17

¶22

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

B.Deepan Chakravarthi, v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Deepan Chakravarthi, v. the 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

Kanniammal @ Balamani Vs Superintendent of Police

Latchumaiah (M/52) Vs State Represented by

Nagaraja Reddy (M/59), Vs the Director General

M.Megala, Aged 25 Years, Vs the Asst. Commissioner of

Sakunthala, Aged 68 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Anitha Vs M.Velu