Dismissed

D.Ramaraj v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. The court held the petition infructuous as a charge sheet had been filed and three witnesses examined in the connected criminal case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed as infructuous and connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

D.Ramaraj Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1391 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.599 of 2018

¶7

D.Ramaraj ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.State rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Srivilliputur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ..Respondent/Complainant

¶10

2.R.Raja ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶11

Prayer: This Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records vide FIR in Crime No.315 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.M. Xavier For R1 : Mr.A.P.G. Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.315 of 2015, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, which is pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the driver of the bus. He further submitted that the deceased has driven a Two Wheeler and hit with the stationed lorry, but, with a view to get compensation a case has been registered against the petitioner and hence, the same has to be quashed.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent has submitted that based on the said complaint charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.10310 of 2017, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputur, and three witnesses have been examined before the Court and hence, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this petition has become infructuous.

¶17

¶18

Recording the aforesaid Submissions, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶21

/True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur.

¶25

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Srivilliputur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶26

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1391 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.599 of 2018 01.02.2018

¶28

trp KK/SV MMS/SAR 4/20.02.2018/ 2P- 4C/

¶29

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

D.Ramaraj v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ramaraj v. the Sub 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

S. Vignesh Vs the Commissioner of Police

C.Patchaiammal, Vs the Inspector of Police

D. Selvaraj, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Umeshnathan Vs R.Meenakshi

National Institute of Siddha Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.K. Ravikumar Vs the Superintendent of Police