Allowed

Mohamed Meeran v. the Sub - Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Jun 2018CRL OP(MD)/21585/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners moved under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge sheet regarding property damage. The high court accepted an undertaking to deposit Rs.2,000 and quashed the proceedings, allowing the petition on the condition that the deposit be made within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.2 of 2008, conditional upon deposit of Rs.2,000 within two weeks.

Mohamed Meeran Vs the Sub - Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.06.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶3

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21585 of 2013 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2013

¶4

1.Mohamed Meeran 2.Rahamathulla ... Petitioners Vs.

¶5

State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Theni District. .. 1^st respondent/complainant

¶6

Mohammed Sidhiq .. 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Abiya For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate. (Criminal side)

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur.

¶11

2.Heard both sides.

¶12

3.The petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur. The second respondent Mohammed Sidhiq is the defacto complainant. According to him, the value of the property damaged by the petitioners is Rs.2,000/-

¶13

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners shall deposit the amount of Rs.2,000/- to the credit of the C.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodiyanakanur. It is open to the defacto complainant to withdraw https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said amount on such deposit being made by the petitioners.

¶14

¶15

5.Recording the said undertaking given by the petitioners,

¶16

the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, stands quashed. Such deposit shall be made by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. This criminal original petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True Copy/

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

The Sub Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Theni District.

¶22

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

¶23

+1CC to Ms.K.Abiya, Advocate, SR.No.67809

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21585 of 2013 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2013 12.06.2018

¶25

¶26

ES/JC/SAR 3/26.06.2018/2P/4C

¶27

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

Mohamed Meeran v. the Sub - Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Meeran 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

Suresh, Vs the Inspector of Police

Balamurugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Hussain Mohammed, Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Surya Vs the Dy. Supdt. of Police

Jeyakumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Jeyakumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of