Disposed

Peter, M/a 29 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Sept 2019CRL OP/6442/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refrained from quashing the FIR on factual grounds cognizant of the ongoing investigation. Upon the submission that the investigation was nearly complete, the court closed the petition but directed the 1st respondent to file the final report within four weeks, granting liberty to challenge the subsequent charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Stopped without going into details after recording the investigation was nearly complete; liberty granted to challenge charge-sheet; dismissed subject to submission of final report within four weeks.

Peter, M/a 29 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.6442 of 2018 and Crl.M.P. No.3285 of 2018

¶6

1.Peter
2.Mohan
3.Jane Sugumari ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women of Police,
W9, Villivakkam Police Station,
Anna Nagar District,
Chennai.
2.Karunya Kiruba ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
to call for the records in FIR No.3 of 2017 on the file of the
1 st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Veeraraghavan
For R1 : Ms.V.Saratha Devi
Government Advocate
(Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan
O R D E R

¶7

This criminal original petition has been filed to call for the records in FIR No.3 of 2017 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶8

2.The various grounds raised by the petitioners, challenging the FIR, are all touching upon the facts of the complaint, which is the subject matter for investigation. This Court may not be justified in quashing the FIR on those grounds and also because of the fact that, by giving a justification to the grounds raised, it may have a bearing on the investigation and

¶9

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

¶10

therefore, this Court is refraining from making any comments on the grounds raised by the petitioners herein.

¶11

3.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the investigation is almost complete and the respondent is at the verge of filing charge-sheet. In the light of the above observations made, if the petitioners are granted liberty to challenge the charge-sheet, the ends of justice could be secured.

¶12

4.For all the reasons stated above, the criminal original petition stands closed with a direction to the 1^st respondent to file a final report, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶13

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CJ Conf)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
mkn
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women of Police,
W9, Villivakkam Police Station,
Anna Nagar District,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶14

+1 cc to Mr.B.Nedunchehiyan Advocate sr82485 +1 cc to Mr.S.Veeraraghavan Advocate sr81871

¶15

Crl.O.P. No.6442 of 2018

¶16

aa16/10/2019

¶17

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

Peter, M/a 29 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peter, M/a 29 Yrs, v. the Inspector 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

M.Ashokan, Aged 48 Years Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

R.Sekar, Aged 60 Years, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras Club Vs Ther State of Tamilnadu

The Kunnathur Primary Agricultural Vs the Joint Registrar Co-Operative

K.Ziaullah, M/A.45 Years Vs K.Shajahan

Peter, M/a 29 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police