Allowed

M.Ashokan, Aged 48 Years v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Sept 2019CRL OP/15846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed a charge sheet under Section 188 IPC on the ground that such offences require a specific procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. involving a complaint by a public servant, not direct filing by police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The impugned charge sheet in STC No.724 of 2015 filed under Section 188 IPC is quashed. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

M.Ashokan, Aged 48 Years Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.09.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.15846 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.7758 of 2016

¶6

M.Ashokan ... Petitioner /Vs./ The Sub Inspector of Police, (Law & Order), Kothagiri Police Station, Nilgiris District. ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to STC No.724 of 2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri, Nilgiris District and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner :Mr.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent :Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶8

The petitioner herein has been charged by the respondent police for the offence under Section 188 IPC through an impugned charge sheet dated 10.01.2012. The charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the investigation conducted in FIR No.415 of 2011 by the respondent police.

¶9

The law with regard to the procedure to be adopted for an offence under Section 188 IPC has been well settled through a catena of judgments. As a matter of fact, the very procedure contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C., is patently clear to the effect that a police officer cannot take cognizance of an offence falling within Sections 172 to 188 IPC and the procedure for such prosecution is contemplated only under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the jurisdictional Court is also deprived of taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC, based on a police report filed under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. Such an

¶10

1/2

¶11

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

¶12

offence can be only by way of a complaint by the concerned public servant as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

¶13

In the instant case, the respondent police had chosen to register the FIR against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 188 IPC and has also filed a report, which is opposed to the aforesaid procedure laid down. On this short ground, impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

¶14

For the foregoing reasons, impugned charge sheet in STC
No.724 of 2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Kothagiri, Nilgiris District stands quashed. Accordingly,
Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Kothagiri, Nilgiri District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
(Law & Order),
Kothagiri Police Station,
Nilgiris District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.V.Karthikeyan, Advocate sr.81415
Order made in
Crl.O.P.No.15846 of 2016
gmr(co)
nr 24/02/2020
2/2

¶15

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

M.Ashokan, Aged 48 Years v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ashokan, Aged 48 Years 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

Nagarajan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

G.Selvaraj Vs the District Superintendent of Police

M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Sekar, Aged 60 Years, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras Club Vs Ther State of Tamilnadu

A. Murugesan, Vs the Superintendent of Police