Allowed

R. Sivaraman v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Oct 2019CRL OP(MD)/12945/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR for energy theft (Sections 135, 139 Electricity Act), the High Court allowed the quashing and closed the connected miscellaneous petition on condition that the second petitioner pays the remaining dues to TANGEDCO in installments. Failure to adhere renders the undertaking voidable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR quashed on terms of paying the balance amount via installments; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

R. Sivaraman Vs the Inspector of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl OP(MD)No.12945 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.10.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl OP(MD)No.12945 of 2015 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶5

1.R.Sivaraman

¶6

2.N.Rajagopal ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, E4, Sindhupatti Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.49 of 2015) ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant 2.A.John Arockia Dass ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto complainant

¶9

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.49 of 2015 dated 01.04.2015 on the file of the respondent No.1 Police Station offences under Sections 135(1), 139 of Electricity Act, 2003 and quash the same as illegal.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson,

¶11

Government Advocate (crl.side) for R1 Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha for R2

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioners stand accused in Crime No.49 of 2015 registered on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 135 (1) and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is a case of energy theft. The liability of the petitioners was quantified at Rs.11.00 lakhs. The first petitioner is no more. The second petitioner had already remitted a sum of Rs.5,47,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners state that the second petitioner N.Rajagopal would pay the balance amount of Rs.5,53,000/to the TANGEDCO in six monthly installments. His first installment will commence on 12.12.2019. Since the dues payable by the second petitioner to the second respondent are to be cleared in full, I am of the view that the impugned FIR need not be kept pending. Therefore, the same is quashed. The impugned FIR is quashed only on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the strength of the undertaking given by the petitioner to clear

¶14

1/2

¶15

Crl OP(MD)No.12945 of 2015

¶16

the dues of TANGEDCO. If the petitioner does not adhere to the undertaking given before this Court, it is open to the first respondent to file final report against the petitioners herein.

¶17

2.This criminal original petition is allowed on these terms. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar (AD-I)

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶22

Skm

¶23

¶24

The Inspector of Police,

¶25

E4, Sindhupatti Police Station, Madurai District.

¶26

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶27

+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-94531[F] dated 25/10/2019 )

¶28

Crl OP(MD)No.12945 of 2015 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2015 24.10.2019

¶29

MK (18.12.2019) 2P 4C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

R. Sivaraman v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sivaraman 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

Annakodi Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Indumathi Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Sakthivel Vs the Inspector of Police

Ragavendran Vs The Inspector of Police

Renganathan @ Rengaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

L. Ramsankar Vs The Inspector of Police