Dismissed

Mohamed Mustafa v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/2279/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused sought quashing of FIR via Cr. O.P. under Section 482 CrPC. Court dismissed petition as infructuous because charge sheet was already filed with the Judicial Magistrate, directing the magistrate to take case on file without delay.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; directed Judicial Magistrate to take case on file without delay.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.02.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2279 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1038 of 2018

¶3

Mohamed Mustafa

¶4

... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs.

¶5

State through The Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. In Crime No.261 of 2017 ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Esakki ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶6

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.261 of 2017 under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent Police and quash the same against the petitioner.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Aravind Raj For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

This petition has been filed by the accused No.2 to quash the FIR in Crime No.261/2017 on the file of the first respondent.

¶10

2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has submitted that already charge sheet has been filed on 27.12.2017 before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. So far the case has not been taken on file.

¶11

3.Recording the aforesaid submissions this petition is dismissed as infructuous. The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram is directed to verify, if already charge sheet has been filed, he has to take the case on file without further delay. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶12

Sd/-

¶13

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶14

/True Copy/

¶15

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

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

¶18

¶19

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram.

¶20

The Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶21

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

¶22

+1CC TO Mr.R.Aravind Raj, Advocate SR.No.51580

¶23

¶24

VB/KK/SAR4/15/03/2018/2P/5C

¶25

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2279 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1038 of 2018 26.02.2018

¶26

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

Mohamed Mustafa v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Mustafa 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

B. Suruliraj Vs the Deputy Superintendent

B. Suruliraj Vs the Deputy Superintendent

Parameswari Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Shankara Narayanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Parimanam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ahista Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police