Dismissed

S.Ravi, Aged 51 Years, v. the Station House Officer

Madras HC20 Jul 2018CRL OP/5248/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition to quash a criminal charge sheet arising from a domestic dispute involving alleged assault on a physically challenged person, holding the factual dispute unsuitable for Section 482 quashing. The Court directed the trial to proceed but allowed the petitioner to spare himself from personal appearance on non-essential dates.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash is dismissed; liberty granted to raise points before the trial court; appearance dispensed with on non-essential days subject to affidavit conditions; connected miscellaneous pet

S.Ravi, Aged 51 Years, Vs the Station House Officer — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.5248 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.2589 of 2018

¶6

S.Ravi
S/o.Singaram .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Station House Officer
Madipakkam Police Station
Keelkattalai
Chennai.
2.M.Sathya
D/o.Malisamani .. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and quash the charge
sheet in STC No.434 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Alandur.

¶7

For Petitioner :Ms.K.Jenitha For Respondents:Mr.C.Raghavan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.M.Himavanth for R2 O R D E R

¶8

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their names.

¶9

It is the case of the prosecution that Revathy (A1) was married to Jegadeesan and their relationship got estranged. It is alleged that on 08.10.2017, Revathy came along with her father Ravi (A2), mother Selvi (A3) and brother Soundrapandian (A4) to the house of Jegadeesan, where a wordy quarrel ensued. The wordy quarrel escalated, resulting in Revathy's group beating Sathya (sister of Jegadeesan), a physically challenged person. Sathya was admitted to the hospital and on her complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1053 of 2017 and after completing the investigation, has filed a charge sheet in STC No.434 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur against A1, A2, A3 and A4, for quashing which Ravi is before this Court.

¶10

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

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for Ravi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and learned Counsel for Sathya.

¶12

Learned counsel for Ravi submitted that no such incident had taken place in the house, in as much as Revathy had gone to her matrimonial home in the morning and she was not permitted to enter the house. On coming to know of it, Ravi, Selvi and Soundarapandian had merely gone for settling the matter, but whereas it was distorted, as if Sathya was assaulted.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for Sathya refuted the contention and submitted that Sathya suffered bleeding injuries as could be seen from the statement of Dr.J.K.Prakash.

¶14

This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties.

¶15

Admittedly, on account of family dispute, the alleged incident had taken place. However, Sathya, being a physically challenged person, appears to have suffered bleeding injuries on her face, as could be seen from the statement of Dr.J.K.Prakash. The submission of the counsel for the accused Ravi is that he had not beaten Sathya. It is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in a quash application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶16

In the result, this petition is devoid of merits and dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points before the trial Court after the charges are framed.

¶17

However, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court for receiving the charge sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C, for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the date of judgment. His presence before the trial Court is dispensed with on the other days, on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the trial Court that he will not dispute his identity and that, his counsel will cross-examine the witnesses when they examined in-chief, as held by the Supreme Court in Vinodh Kumar Vs State of Punjab reported in 2015[1] MLJ [Crl] 288. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

1.The Station House Officer Madipakkam Police Station Keelkattalai Chennai.

¶25

The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

¶26

3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr. P.Vasanth, Advocate Sr.49095
CRL.OP.No.5248 of 2018
GJII(CO)
EU(06/08/2018 )

¶27

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

S.Ravi, Aged 51 Years, v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ravi, Aged 51 Years, v. the Station House Officer

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

Jeeva Vs Balasubramani

Mrs.T.Nirmala, Vs the State Rep. by

T.Sam Jacob, Aged 50 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Ramesh Kumar Guptha Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

Vedhavalli, F/a 55 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Ramalingam, M/a 67 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police