Allowed

V.Pharaman v. State Rep.by

Madras HC19 Dec 2019CRL OP/31154/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed to quash an FIR registered under various IPC and IT Act sections. Court quashed the FIR holding the underlying Section 156(3) Magistrate order unsustainable because the complainant failed to file the mandatory affidavit required by Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Crl.O.P. allowed; First Information Report No. 77 of 2018 quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

V.Pharaman Vs State Rep.by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.12.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.31154 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.16966 of 2019

¶6

V.Pharaman ...Petitioner -Vs1.State Rep by Inspector of Police Thiruppapuliyur Police Station Cuddalore.

¶7

2.Subbulakshmi ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.77 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruppapuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Gopinath

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

: No appearance for R2

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition has been filed by the accused to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.77 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that based on the petition filed by the second respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore, has forwarded the said complaint to the first respondent to register the First Information Report and based on the same, the first respondent has registered the First Information Report in Cr.No.77 of 2018 under Sections 294(b), 509, 507, 506(i) IPC, Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava and another Vs. State of UP and others, 2015 (6) SCC 287 has held that the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applicant, but in this case, the second respondent has not

¶15

filed any affidavit in support of her petition. He further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, without considering the said fact, has mechanically forwarded the complaint to the first respondent directing him to register the First Information Report and based on the said direction, the first respondent has registered an FIR and therefore, he prayed to quash the First Information Report.

¶16

As per the order of this Court dated 20.11.2019, the petitioner has sent a private notice by RPAD to the second respondent and also filed AOS stating that notice which was sent by RPAD was already served on the second respondent on 10.12.2019. Hence, the name of the second respond has been printed in the cause-list. But the second respondent has not appeared either in person or through counsel. Hence, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent order is being passed in this petition.

¶17

A perusal of the typed set of papers shows that the second respondent has filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore on 21.02.2018 and the same was forwarded to the first respondent under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. But the said application was not supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava and another Vs. State of UP and others, 2015 (6) SCC 287 and therefore, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, forwarding the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the first respondent directing him to register the First Information Report itself is unsustainable and consequently, the First Information Report is liable to be quashed.

¶18

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report No.77 of 2018 is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (J)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

Dna

¶24

¶25

1.The Inspector of Police

¶26

Thiruppapuliyur Police Station Cuddalore.

¶27

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

¶28

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.A.Gopinath, Advocate, S.R.No. 106431

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.31154 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.16966 of 2019

¶31

GN(23/01/2020)

¶32

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

V.Pharaman v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Pharaman v. State Rep.by

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

Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shri Kamaravadi Shivappa Mahindra

Kasthuri Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Venkatesan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Adalarasu, M/40 Vs Shri.T.Panchatsharam

K.Srilatha Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

S.Jayanthi Vs Priya