Allowed

Elumalai, M/61 Yrs v. State Rep by

Madras HC15 Apr 2019CRL OP/8041/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Criminal Original Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed to quash an FIR regarding misappropriation of funds. The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the investigation against the petitioners following prior rulings against other accused in the same case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petitions were allowed; the investigation in Crime No.291 of 2010 and connected miscellaneous petitions were quashed and closed.

Elumalai, M/61 Yrs Vs State Rep by — Corruption | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.8041 and 7947 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4133 and 4086 of 2018

¶6

Elumalai ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8041/2018 Jothi ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7947/2018

¶7

-VsState rep. by 1. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Chennai. Crime No.291 of 2010 2. K.Ravikumar ... Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶8

COMMON PRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crime No.291 of 2010, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Chennai and quash the same.

¶9

(in both Crl.O.Ps.) For Petitioner : Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy

¶10

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

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.291 of 2010, on the file of the 1^st respondent herein.

¶13

2.The petitioners have been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.291 of 2010 for having misappropriated a sum of Rs.21,903.85/-. Hence a case was registered against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 6(ii) and 6(iii) of

¶14

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

¶15

TNSC (RDCS), order 1982 r/w 7(i) a(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier this Court had quashed the F.I.R. insofar as the other accused persons are concerned. Hence, he seeks to quash the F.I.R.

¶17

4.Heard both sides.

¶18

5.It is seen that earlier this Court by an order dated 25.01.2018 in Crl.O.P.No.704 of 2018 and by an order dated 26.02.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.4664 of 2019, has already quashed the F.I.R as against the other accused persons in Crime No.291 of 2010. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to quash the investigation, insofar as these petitioners also. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.291 of 2010, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Chennai, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. rm Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Chennai. Crime No.291 of 2010 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶19

+1cc to Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy, Advocate, SR.No.37560

¶20

Crl.O.P.Nos.8041 and 7947 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4133 and 4086 of 2018

¶21

Kak(04/07/2019)

¶22

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

Elumalai, M/61 Yrs v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elumalai, M/61 Yrs 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

S. Asokan Vs State Rep. by

S.Kudiyarasu Devi Vs the State Rep by Its

Vis-ram Financial Services Ltd. Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

T.Natarajan, Vs State

Manimala Vs C. Kandasamy

Srinivasan, Aged 67 Years, Vs Shakila Mohan Gandhi