Allowed

V.Anbazhagan v. the Assistant Commissioner of Police

Madras HC17 Sept 2019CRL OP/20355/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that since an interim stay order on the cognizable cases remains effective, the summons issued under Section 61 Cr.P.C cannot be sustained. The court quashed the summons and allowed the petition despite police inadvertence in communicating the stay.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned summons issued by the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions were closed.

V.Anbazhagan Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.20355 OF 2019 and

¶6

CRL.MP.Nos.10468 & 10470 OF 2019

¶7

V.Anbazhagan ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. 2.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station, Chennai-600 045. (Crime No.838/2017) ...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to the summon issued to the petitioner herein in S.C.No.154 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumaradevan

¶10

For Respondents 1-2 : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The impugned summon has been issued under Section 61 of Cr.P.C. calling upon the petitioner to answer the charges under the provisions of SC/ST Act.

¶13

2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original complaint against the petitioner which was registered in FIR No.820 of 2017 and 838 of 2017 was challenged before this Court and this Court by order dated 19.02.2018 and 20.02.2018 passed in Crl.O.P.No.4801 of 2018 and Crl.O.P.No.4918

¶14

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

¶15

of 2018 respectively, has stayed further investigation in both these FIRs.

¶16

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the orders of interim stay dated 19.02.2018 & 20.02.2018 were not brought to the notice of the Inspector of Police which permitted him to file a final report, pursuant to which, the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu had issued summons.

¶17

Though the police was also represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at the time of granting of stay before this Court, by accepting the plea of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the stay orders were unnoticed due to inadvertence, this Court is inclined not to take any further action of such inadvertence on the part of the Inspector of Police.

¶18

It is not in dispute that the interim order of stay is still in force, as such, the present impugned summons cannot be sustained.

¶19

In the light of the above observations, the impugned summon on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu is quashed. 7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bkn/ssr

¶20

¶21

The Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. 3.The Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station, Chennai-600 045.

¶22

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

¶23

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.S.Kumaradevan, Advocate SR.No.79645

¶25

CRL.OP.No.20355 OF 2019 and CRL.MP.Nos.10468 & 10470 OF 2019

¶26

GMY(24/09/2019)

¶27

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

V.Anbazhagan v. the Assistant Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Anbazhagan v. the Assistant Commissioner 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

Senthamizhselvan Vs the State Rep.by

E.Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police

Tmt.Dhanam Vs state of Tamil Nadu Rep by its

Mahendran, Age 50 Vs State by

R.Nataraj Vs the State Rep.by

S.S.Sundaram Vs State Rep.by