Disposed

Vellaiyammal v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC7 Feb 2019CRL OP/2848/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed petitions seeking quashing of FIRs. The Court declined to quash the FIRs but directed the police to complete the enquiry and file a final report within three months due to the nature of the cases as counter cases.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were not granted quashing of the FIRs. The police were directed to complete the enquiry and file a final report within three months.

Vellaiyammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.02.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.2848 & 2850 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1868 & 1872 of 2019

¶6

Vellaiyammal
2. Shanthi
... Petitioners in both Crl.O.P.'s
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Thalaivasal Police Station,
Attur Taluk,
Salem District
... 1 st respondent in both Crl.O.P.'s
Krishnamoorthy
... 2 nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2848 of 2019/Complainant
Vijay
... 2 nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2850 of 2019/Complainant

¶7

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of Cr.Nos.94 of 2017 & 93 of 2017 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal, Attur Taluk with respect to the petitioners and quash the same.

¶8

These petitions have been filed to call for the records of Cr.Nos.94 of 2017 & 93 of 2017 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal, Attur Taluk with respect to the petitioners and quash the same.

¶9

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

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case as such they have filed this petition to quash the FIR in Crime Nos.94 & 93 of 2017.

¶11

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that these cases have been registered for the offences under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and moreover these are counter cases.

¶12

Considering the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR in Crime Nos.94 & 93 of 2017. However considering the fact that these are counter cases, the first respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and on following the police standing rules file a final report both in Crime Nos.94 & 93 of 2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶13

With the above direction, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar lok To

¶14

The Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Attur Taluk, Salem District

¶15

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.Nos.2848 & 2850 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1868 & 1872 of 2019

¶16

nr 14/03/2019

¶17

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

Vellaiyammal v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vellaiyammal v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.Srinivasan Vs the Deputy Director (Bocw)

M.S.Srinivasan Vs the Deputy Director (Bocw)

M.S.Srinivasan Vs the Deputy Director (Bocw)

N.Palanivelu Vs State Rep.by

Hindu Makkal Party Tamilnadu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Indus Towers Limited Vs the Superintendent of Police