Allowed

Yesu v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC23 Jan 2019CRL OP/1612/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras, Wolverine Single Bench, allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashment of an FIR. The court held that the informant and investigator in the case being the same person vitiates the investigation based on Supreme Court jurisprudence.

What did the court decide?

The FIR was quashed; cognizance of the final report was barred; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Yesu Vs the State Rep by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.01.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.No.1612 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.1012 of 2019 Yesu ... Petitioner Vs. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police B4-Police Station Sevviapet, Thiruvallur Dist. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of FIR in crime No.616 of 2018 and quash the same as against the petitioner/2 nd Accused herein.

¶2

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandra Sekaran For Respondent : Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in C.C.No.616 of 2018. The FIR has been registered based on the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of Police of the 1 st respondent Police Station for the offence under sections 379 and 430 IPC. The case was investigated by the very same Officer and the final report has also been filed by him before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur, on 02.12.2018.

¶3

2. The facts of this case is squarely covered by the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [Mohanlal Vs.State of Punjab] reported in 2018 SCC Online SC, 974. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment referred supra has categorically held that the informant and the investigator cannot be the same person and the same vitiates the entire investigation. 3. In the result the FIR in C.C.No.616 of 2018 is hereby quashed and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur is

¶4

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

¶5

directed not to take cognizance of the final report in view of the quashing of the FIR itself. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶6

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mpa/rka
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Tiruvallur.
2.The Inspector of Police
B4-Police Station
Sevviapet, Thiruvallur Dist.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
+1cc to Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.5226
Crl.O.P.No.1612 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1012 of 2019
rrs 08/02/2019

¶7

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

Yesu v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yesu v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Prakash Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Gopi Vs the State Rep by Its

G.Manju Vs the State Represented by

C.Balu Vs R.M.Meiyappan

Derick Cutinha Vs the State Rep.by

Dipan Nath Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police