Dismissed

Sai Arun Prasath v. the State

Madras HC26 Aug 2020CRL OP/12053/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR and prosecution for offences under Sections 188, 269, and 271 of the IPC. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation was completed, a final report filed, and the Magistrate had taken cognizance. The court held the petition infructuous and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed as infructuous; petitioner allowed to file private complaint.

Sai Arun Prasath Vs the State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:26.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No. 12053 of 2020 and

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.4855 of 2020

¶7

Sai Arun Prasath S/o. Murugan, Residing at No.2/311, S9, Nilgiri nagar Phase 2, Teachers Colony, Karamadal Village, Coimbatore Taluk & District-641104 Tamilnadu ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The State, The Inspector of Police, Karamadi Police Station, Coimbatore District, Tamilnadu, Cr.No.123/2020 ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the F.I.R dated 28.03.2020 in the Crime No.123 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police at Karamadai Police Station at Coimbatore.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Eswar Kumar and Rao For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

This petition has been filed for a direction directing to quash the F.I.R dated 28.03.2020 in Crime No.123 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police at Karamadai Police Station at Coimbatore and thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Section 188, 269, 271 of IPC.

¶12

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is already completed on the file of the respondent police, Karamadai Police Station at Coimbatore, and file a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.366 of 2020 before the file of the learned Judicial

¶13

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

¶14

Magistrate, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore. Therefore, the prayer sought for in this petition become infructuous.

¶15

Recording the said submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Criminal Original Petition become dismissed as infructuous.

¶16

The petitioner is at liberty to file private complaint in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Karamadi Police Station,
Coimbatore District, Tamilnadu
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.12053 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.4855 of 2020
RSV(CO)
RV(09/10/2020)

¶19

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

Sai Arun Prasath v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Arun Prasath v. the State

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

K.Rajesh Vs the State Rep. by

Kumaresan Vs the State Rep.by

P.Shrithar Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Magesh Kumar Vs State Rep by

Ravi @ Ravichandran Vs State Represented by

Lakshmi Prakash Vs the Commissioner of Police