Disposed

Govindarasu v. State Rep.by

Madras HC18 Feb 2019CRL OP/534/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court in a qua petition to quash an FIR under Sections 147, 148 IPC refused to quash the same due to a parallel registration. It instead directed the police to complete investigation under Standing Orders 588A and file a closure report within three months.

What did the court decide?

The FIR was not quashed; the police was directed to complete investigation under Standing Order 588A and file a final report within three months.

Govindarasu Vs State Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.534 OF 2019 AND CRL.M.P.NO.374 OF 2019

¶6

Govindarasu
2. Lakshmi
3. Kaliyaperumal
4. Sagundhala
5. Muthaiyan
6. Orange ... Petitioners / Accused 1 - 6
Vs.
1. State rep by
Inspector of Police
Udayarpalayam Police Station
Ariyalur District.
(in Crime No.359 of 2018) ... Respondent/Complainant
2. Govindasamy ... Respondent/Defacto
Complainant

¶7

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.359 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Murugesan

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.359 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

¶12

It is seen that the case which has been registered as against the petitioners in Crime No.359 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(1) of IPC, for

¶13

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

¶14

the same offences, Crime No.358 of 2018 has been registered as against the defacto complainant and his family members. Therefore, the FIR in Crime No.359 of 2018 cannot be quashed at this stage.

¶15

However, the first respondent is directed to complete the Police Standing Orders 588A and complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
raja
To
1. Inspector of Police
Udayarpalayam Police Station
Ariyalur District.
(in Crime No.359 of 2018)
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.534 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.374 of 2019
CS/25/03/2019

¶18

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

Govindarasu v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindarasu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sudalaimani Vs State by

K.Perumal Vs The District Collector

T.Sivakumar, Vs The Commissioner of Police

S.Vimal Sekar@Vimala Sekar Vs the Inspector of Police

V.S.J.Dinakaran Vs the State Rep. by

T.Meena Vs Seeralan