Dismissed

Sheela@ Amsa v. State Rep by

Madras HC25 Apr 2017CRL OP/33403/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR. Rejecting arguments regarding procedural compliance and lack of patient hearing, the Court held that since the complaint disclosed cognizable offences, there was no basis to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sheela@ Amsa Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.33403 of 2014

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

Sheela @ Amsa
2. Ravi
3. Vinoth Babu
4. Kutty @ Pramila
5. Suresh ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. State rep by: Inspector of Police,
L&O, P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station,
Chennai-39.
2. R.Natarajan
S/O Ramasamy ..Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code praying to exercise its inherent powers
U/S 482 of the CRPC and quash all further proceedings as well as
the First Information Report in P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station
Crime No.762/2011 dated 13.09.2011 on the file of respondent
Inspector of Police.

¶8

For Petitioners:Mr.N.Gerard

¶9

For Respondents:Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate(crl.side) for R1 :Mr.R.C.Paul Kanakaraj for R2

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Petitioners have come forward with this Criminal Original Petition, for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash all further proceedings as well as the First Information Report in P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station Crime No.762/2011 dated 13.09.2011 on the file of respondent Inspector of Police.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] and Mr.R.C.Paul Kanakaraj, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶13

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

¶14

3 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that several provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially section 157 of Cr.P.C., has not been complied with by the Investigating Agency in this case. Further, the learned counsel submits that this Court is not giving him a patient hearing.

¶15

4.Unfortunately, this Court finds that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are totally unacceptable. By way of present Petition, the petitioners have come forward to quash the F.I.R. in the case registered in Crime No.762 of 2011, on the file of the Inspector of Police, P-3, Vyarsarpadi Police Station, Chennai. The complaint of the case is very brief and reads as follows:

¶16

,d;W 13/09/2011k; njjp ,ut[ Ma;thsh; gp3 tpahrh;gho fhty; epiyak; Mfpa ehd; epiya mYtypy; ,Ue;j bghGJ jpU/Mh;/eluh$d; M-t/42. j-bg/,uhkrhkp be/4-77. rj;jpaK:h;j;jp efh;. tpahrh;gho. brd;id?39. vd;gth; epiyak; te;J bfhLj;j g [fhhpd; tptuk; gpd;tUkhW. mDg;g[dh; :- Mh;/eluh$d; M-t/42. j-bg/,uhkrhkp be/4-77. rj;jpaK:h;j;jp efh;. tpahrh;gho. brd;id?39/ bgWeh;; :- cah;jpU Ma;thsh; gp3. tpahrh;gho fhty; epiyak;. brd;id ? 39/ Iah.

¶17

ehd; nkw;fz;l Kfthpapy; FLk;gj;Jld; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/ ehd; tHf;fwp"uhf gzpg[hpe;J tUfpnwd;/ vdf;Fk;. vd; nky; tPl;oy; ,Uf;Fk; utp vd;gtUf;Fk; rpy khj';fSf;F Kd;g[ tha; jfuhW Vw;gl;lJ/ ,e;j epiyapy; ,d;W khiy 07/30 kzpastpy; ehd; vd; tPl;oy; ,Ue;j bghGJ fjit glglbtd;W jl;Lk; rj;jk; nfl;L ehd; fjit jpwe;jt[ld; nkw;go utp vd;gthpd; j';if rPyh (v) mk;rh vd;Dila tPl;ow;Fs; EiHe;J nla; vg;gghU vd; mz;ziz jpl;owpahnk vd;W mrp';fkhd thh;j;ijfshy; jpl;odhh;/ ehd; VJthf ,Ue;jhYk; btspna ngha; ngR vd;wt[ld; mth; jdJ mz;zd; utpf;F bry;nghdpny ngrpdhh;/ rpwpJ neuj;jpy; nkw;go utpa[k; mtUld; tpndhj; kw;Wk; bgah; bjhpahj ghh;j;jhy; milahsk; fhl;lf;Toa ,uz;L egh;fs; te;jt[ld; vd;dh ePbad;d tf;fpy;d;dh bghpa g{yh vd;wg;go vd;id ifahy; moj;jhh;fs;/ utp vd;gth; nla; bghUis vLj;J nghLlh vd;wt[ld; mtDld; ,Ue;jtd; cd;id bfhy;yhky; tpl khl;nld;lh vd;W ifapy; itj;jpUe;j fj;jpia vLj;J btl;l te;jhd;/ ehd; xJ';fp bfhs;snt mJ vd;nky; gltpy;iy/ mg;bghGJ utpapd; kidtp Fl;o (v) gpukpsh vd;gth; ,td; vd;d bghpa tf;fPy;d;dh ekf;F bghpa I$pia bjhpa[k;/ tplhjP';f mtid vd;W mrp';fkhf jpl;odhh;/ clnd Fog;nghijapy; ,Ue;j utpa[k; K:d;W egh;fSk; rk;gt ,lj;jpypUe;J Xotpl;ldh;/ vdnt vd;id jhf;fpa utp. mtDld; te;j K:d;W egh;fs;. utpapd; kidtp Fl;o (v) gpukpsh utpapd; j';if rPyh (v) mk;rh Mfpnahh;fs; kPJ jFe;j eltof;if vLf;FkhW nfl;L bfhs;fpnwd;/

¶18

,g;gof;F (xg;gk;) Mh;/eluh$d;/

¶19

ma;ah.

¶20

,d;W 13/09/2011k; njjp ,ut[ 19/45 kzpf;F ,e;j g[fhiu bgw;W. ,e;j g[fhh; kPJ gp3 tpahrh;gho fhty; epiya Fw;w vz;/762-2011. U/s 147, 448, 323, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC?y; tHf;F gjpt[ bra;J tprhuizf;F vLj;J bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/.”

¶21

5.While entertaining a Petition for quashing the F.I.R., all that this Court can do is to satisfy itself, whether the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences. If this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court finds that there is any alleged commission of cognizable offence, it would not quash the case. Ffinding that cognizable

¶22

offences are made out, on a bare reading of the complaint, this Court is not inclined to quash the case registered in Crime No.762 of 2011, on the file of the Inspector of Police, P-3, Vyarsarpadi Police Station, Chennai.

¶23

6.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpa/gsk
To
1. Inspector of Police,
L&O, P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station,
Chennai-39.
2. Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.33403 of 2014
BR(CO)
Eu 02/08/17

¶25

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

Sheela@ Amsa v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela@ Amsa v. State Rep by

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

S.Balasubramanian Vs The commissioner of Police

Senthilkumar, Age 34 Yrs, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

Martin Charles Vs the State Rep by

Rajan @ Soundara Rajan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Jayakrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs.Sarathambal Vs B.S.Samyuktha