Allowed

Durai Kuppusamy v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC25 Apr 2019CRL OP/29292/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against two accused. The court found the proceedings liable to be quashed due to a 10-year delay in lodging the complaint and the complainant's prior involvement in a writ petition, deeming it an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The entire impugned proceedings in C.C.No.473 of 2015 and the connected Miscellaneous Petition were quashed.

Durai Kuppusamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.29292 of 2015

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

Durai Kuppusamy
2. Durai Kesavan ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2

¶8

Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendnet of Police,
CBCID, Vellore.
2.The State;
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Vellore.
3.Abdul Sukur ... Respondents/Complainant

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.473 of 2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioners : M/s. S.Samuel Raja Pandian

¶11

For Respondents 1&2: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

For Respondent-3 : Mr.S.Raveendran

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash in C.C.No.473 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Arakkonam, Vellore District.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioners are arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.473 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Vellore District, having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 448, 427 and 379 IPC.

¶18

It is seen from the charge sheet, the alleged occurrence took place on 13.12.1999 at about 11.30 a.m., in Vellore District. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioners along with 20 others had trespassed into the shop premises belonging to the third respondent/defacto-complainant and they had caused damage to the utensils and movable properties inside the shop to an estimated value of about Rs.1.50 lakhs and had thus committed offences under sections 448, 427 and 379 IPC. Thereafter, the third respondent/defactocomplainant lodged a police complaint only in the year 2010, but he has not given any explanation for delay in lodgement of complaint. It is also seen that the third respondent filed a direction petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15872 of 2010 by an order dated 21.09.2010 and this Court directed the second respondent to conduct an enquiry, if cognizable offence is made out on the outcome of the enquiry. Thereafter, the second respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2011 for the alleged offences under Sections 448 and 427 IPC. Therefore, on this ground alone the entire proceedings vitiated and it can not be sustained as against the petitioners.

¶19

Further, it is also seen that the third respondent has also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6192 of 2003 before this Court, challenging the order passed by the learned District Revenue Officer, Vellore District and the said writ petition was also disposed of since the entire issues are civil in nature. Therefore, the entire impugned proceedings are clear abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow this petition and the entire impugned proceedings in C.C.No.473 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Arakkonam, Vellore District, is hereby quashed.

¶21

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/-

¶22

Deputy Registrar(CJ Conf)

¶23

//True copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

msm

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Judicial Magistrate-II, Arakkonam, Vellore District

¶29

-do-Through' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.

¶30

The District Revenue Officer, Vellore.

¶31

The Judicial Magistrtae, Arakkonam.

¶32

5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBCID, Vellore.
6.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Vellore.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.Raveendran, Advocate SR.No.40435
Crl.O.P.No.29292 of 2015
KK(CO)
GMY(24/05/2019)

¶33

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

Durai Kuppusamy v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durai Kuppusamy v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

M.Velu Vs State by

S.Shankaran Vs the Inspector of Police

V.M.Kothandaraman Vs State by

Meenakshi Vs the District Superintendent of

Kudiyarasu Vs the Superintendent of Police

Eganathan, Aged 28 Years, Vs State Rep. by