Disposed

N.S.Senthil Kumar, v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC7 Feb 2018CRL OP/3577/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding an FIR for corruption. The Court noted that while normally such FIRs are not quashed, peculiar facts existed as the investigating officer found no material for prosecution and the government had accepted stopping criminal action while initiating departmental proceedings. The Court disposed of the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous based on the investigation report and government order.

N.S.Senthil Kumar, Vs the State Rep. by — Corruption | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3577 of 2018

¶6

N.S.Senthil Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs.

¶7

1.The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Kanchipuram District.
Crime No.4/AC/2012/KM
2.P.Jayavel .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records in Crime No.4/AC/2012/KM
dated 29.08.2012, pending on the file of the repondent/police
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER

¶8

The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.4/AC/2012/KM dated 29.08.2012, pending on the file of the repondent/police. Normally, the Court don't entertain quashing the FIR following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anothers Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others dated 21.11.1990. However, in this case, the peculiar facts require interference of this Court. The FIR registered on 29.08.2012 alleging demand and receipt of bribe under investigation for more than 5 years and now the learned Public Prosecutor submits that as early as on 08.11.2013, the Investigation Officer after examining 14 witnesses and 8 documents has opined that there is no material to prosecute the petitioner herein before the Court of law. However, for the

¶9

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

¶10

misconduct and dereliction of duty he may be tried under conduct rules by initiating departmental proceedings.

¶11

Considering, this report of the Investigation Officer, the Government have issued G.O. (2D) No.22, dated 08.11.2013 accepting to the proposal to stop further action on the First Information Report and to initiate departmental proceedings consulting the administrative department.

¶12

Recording the same, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of as infructuous.

¶13

-sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sji
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Kanchipuram District.
Crime No.4/AC/2012/KM.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 C.C. to Mr.Ravichandran Advocate SR.NO.9293
Crl.O.P.No.3577 of 2018
VS 26.02.2018

¶14

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

N.S.Senthil Kumar, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S.Senthil Kumar, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Durga Prasad, Aged 52 Years, Vs State Rep. by

M.Thiruselvam, 50 Years Vs the State by

M.Ganesan, M/a 61 Yrs, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Mr.R.Chinnakannu, M/A.62 Years Vs the State Rep by

State Rep. by, Vs Tr.S.Venugopal

S.Kumari, Aged 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by