Dismissed

Saroja v. the State, Rep.by

Madras HC3 Oct 2019WP/39959/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an FIR registered by the respondent police station. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that quashing is not possible at this stage as the investigation was completed, a final report filed, and cognizance taken by the courts.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari to quash the FIR dismissed; associated Miscellaneous Petition closed. No costs.

Saroja Vs the State, Rep.by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.10.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 39959 of 2005 and W.P.M.P. 42861 of 2005

¶6

Saroja ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State,
rep. by Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Hosur,
Dharmapuri.
2. N.Nizar Ahamed,
Father name not known,
28C, Palaniappa Nagar,
Ramanathapuram,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in FIR No.6/2004 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, unjust. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents : Mr.I.Sathish, Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in crime No.6/2004 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶10

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the above said complaint has been given by the 2^nd respondent and the complaint was registered in Crime No.6 of 2004 on the file of the 1^st respondent. Now, it is submitted that

¶11

1/2

¶12

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

¶13

the investigation in the above F.I.R. has been over, a final report was also filed, and the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence, and the matter is pending in C.C. No.548 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Hosur.

¶14

Considering the fact that already the investigation is
over, final report has been filed, and the learned Judicial
Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. At this stage,
F.I.R. cannot be quashed. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Petition
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
The Inspector of Police,
State,
All Women Police Station,
Hosur,
Dharmapuri.
+1 cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari Advocate sr84772
W.P. 39959 of 2005
and
W.P.M.P. 42861 of 2005
mr(co)
aa01/11/2019

¶15

2/2

¶16

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

Saroja v. the State, Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroja v. the 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

P.Nedumaran Vs the Secretary to Govt of T.N.

P.Nedumaran Vs the Secretary to Govt of T.N.

Subha Veerapandian Vs the Secretary to Govt of T.N.

Muniyan Vs the Settlment Officer

Smt. S.B.R. Sukh, Partner, (Deceased) Vs the Tahsildar

J.Mohammed Jakaria Vs The District Collector