Dismissed

Miss.Loganayagi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Oct 2018CRL OP/27920/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash a Section 156(3) order summoning witnesses where an FIR had already been registered against third parties, holding the petition infructuous as the petitioner must file a separate petition to quash the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed as infructuous and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Miss.Loganayagi Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.10.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.27920 of 2013

¶6

and MP.No.1 of 2013

¶7

Loganayagi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. State Rep by:The Inspector of Police, Land grabbing Special Cell Police Station, Tiruppur.

¶10

2. C.Rangasamy ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records connected with the order dated 12.09.2013 in C.M.P.No.831 of 2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate – Land grabbing matters – Fast Track Court- Tiruppur under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thilageswaran

¶13

For R1 : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

For R2 : Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Land grabbing matters- Fast Track Court, Tiruppur in CMP.No.831 of 2013, dated 12.09.2013.

¶17

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., mechanically without applying his mind and hence, the said order has to be quashed.

¶18

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that based on the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the first respondent has registered a case in Crime

¶19

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

¶20

No.29 of 2013 under Sections 467, 468, 420, 448, 292, 506 (ii) IPC against two persons namely Marimuthu and Ponni. But, the petitioner has not been shown as accused and hence, this petition is not maintainable.

¶21

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent has submitted that in the complaint, the petitioner's name also has been mentioned but merely because the first respondent has omitted the petitioner's name in the accused column, it does not mean that the petitioner herein is not an accused. He further submitted that based on the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the first respondent has registered a case in Crime No. 29 of 2013 and thereafter, the petitioner wants to quash the FIR. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot question the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, whereas, she may file a petition to quash the FIR.

¶22

Considering the fact that already FIR has been
registered, it is open to the petitioner to file a petition to
quash the FIR. Therefore the Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
msrm
To
1. The Learned Judicial Magistrate,
Land grabbing matters,
Fast Track Court, Tiruppur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Land grabbing Special Cell Police Station,
Tiruppur.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
+1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate, S.R.No. 68227

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.27920 of 2013 and MP.No.1 of 2013

¶24

GN(26/10/2018)

¶25

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

Miss.Loganayagi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss.Loganayagi v. the Inspector of Police

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

Ramamurthy Vs K.Nagavelu

Prabhu Vs Durgadevi

Stephen Stanisiaus Rosario Vs the Asst.Commissioner of

P.Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Shanmugasundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

Tharagaraman Vs Rani