Disposed

V.S.J.Dinakaran v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC18 Feb 2019CRL OP/1269/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a Criminal Original Petition challenging an FIR. The petitioner sought quashing based on limitation bars for certain IPC offences. The Court directed the police to file a final report within four weeks and dismissed the petition without actual quashing.

What did the court decide?

Directed first respondent to file final report within four weeks; Crl.O.P. disposed of and connected M.P. closed.

V.S.J.Dinakaran Vs the State Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.1269 OF 2019
AND
CRL.M.P.NO.831 OF 2019
1. V.S.J.Dinakaran
2. Shankar Ganesh
3. Sathish Kumar
4. Ravi Durai @ Ravi
5. K.Abbas
6. M.Saravanan
7. G.Saravanan
8. S.Suresh
9. P.Ramki ... Petitioners / Accused
Vs.
1. The State rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
Thirumullaivayal Police Station,
Chennai - 62.
... Respondents/Complainant
2. M.Palanisamy ... Respondents/Defacto Complainant
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records the FIR in
Crime No.253 of 2014 pending investigation on the file of the
respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Raghunath
For R1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER

¶6

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records the FIR in Crime No.253 of 2014 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶7

A case has been registered as against the petitioners in Crime No.253 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 341, 147,

¶8

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

¶9

427, 448, 506(i) IPC, which were subsequently, altered to 147 420 448 341 427 506(i) of IPC and Section 3 of TNPP (D & L) Act and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offences under Sections 341, 147, 427, 448, 506(i) IPC are punishable below 3 years of imprisonment. As per the provision under Section 468 of C.R.P.C., there is a bar for taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation for the offences 341, 147, 427, 448, 506(i) IPC which punishable within a period of three years. So far, the first respondent has not filed any charge sheet and therefore, he sought for quashing the said FIR.

¶11

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is already completed and they are awaiting for approval of the learned additional public prosecutor.

¶12

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar raja To 1. The Inspector of Police, Thirumullaivayal Police Station, Chennai - 62. 2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.14546

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.1269 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.831 of 2019

¶15

CS/25/03/2019

¶16

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

V.S.J.Dinakaran v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.J.Dinakaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sudalaimani Vs State by

K.Perumal Vs The District Collector

T.Sivakumar, Vs The Commissioner of Police

S.Vimal Sekar@Vimala Sekar Vs the Inspector of Police

Govindarasu Vs State Rep.by

T.Meena Vs Seeralan