Kannan. v. State Rep.by
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court closed the criminal miscellaneous petitions allowing the defacto complainant to approach the Magistrate. It held that a pending civil suit does not preclude criminal proceedings and a favorable handwriting opinion does not automatically prove forgery.
What did the court decide?
No investigation pending; CIFR closed with liberty to complainant to file protest application in Magistrate's Court within four weeks.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.04.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.2702 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2059 of 2017
1.Kannan 2.R.Ganesan 3.R.Dakshinamoorthy 4.Saravanan 5.P.Dakshinamoorthy 6.A.B.Murugesan 7.R.Venkatesan : Petitioners
-Vs-
- State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City, In Crime No.42 of 2014, Madurai District.
- S.V.Ramachandran : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.42 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent/complainant and quash the same.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the existence of a pending civil lis and scope for different signatures in future prevents quashing of an FIR alleging forgery.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Kannan
- petitioner
R.Ganesan
- petitioner
R.Dakshinamoorthy
- petitioner
Saravanan
- petitioner
P.Dakshinamoorthy
- petitioner
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court