Dismissed

Malliga v. Arjunan

Madras HC6 Jun 2019CRL OP/1357/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the lower courts' order dismissing a private complaint. The Court found no infirmity, as lower courts correctly held that no cognizable offence was made out. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Malliga Vs Arjunan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1357 of 2015

¶6

Malliga ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Arjunan 2.Rajendran 3.Manickkam 4.Kamala ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in C.R.P.No.54 of 2012 order dated 31.10.2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem, confirming the order dated 18.09.2012 in C.C.No.358 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem, to set aside the said orders and to direct the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jagadeesan

¶8

For Respondents : No Appearance

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in C.R.P.No.54 of 2012 confirming the order passed in C.C.No.358 of 2012 wherein the Court below has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner in exercise of its its jurisdiction under section 203 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts below filed to taken into consideration that fact that a cognizable offence has been made out and there were materials to prove the same and that the Court below ought to have issued summons to the accused persons and should have

¶12

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

¶13

proceeded further in accordance with law. The learned counsel further submitted that the Court below went to wrong in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

¶14

3.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the materials available on record.

¶15

Both the Courts below have considered the entire materials available on record and have found that there are absolutely no materials in order to substantiate any of the alleged offence complaint by the petitioner. That apart the Court also took into consideration the pending civil suit between the parties and the relationship between the parties. The Court have come to an categorical ---no cognizable offence has been made by the complainant.

¶16

This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in
the order passed by the Court below and there are no grounds
interfere with the same.
6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mpa/uma
To
1.The III Additional District Judge,
Salem.
2. The the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.P.Jagadeesan, Advocate, Sr.No. 45606

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.1357 of 2015 SS(CO) CSL/28.06.2019

¶18

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

Malliga v. Arjunan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malliga v. Arjunan

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

Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Vs the Director General of

M.Gopi Vs Superintendent of Police

T.Vijaya Prabhu Vs S.Srinivasan

M.S.Parvatham Vs the Inspector of Police

G. Sekar Vs Smt. Malathi

V.Flora Jenefar Vs v.C.Ravichandran