Allowed

S.Riyaz Basha v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Oct 2020CRL OP/24433/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an accused in a case regarding an assembly violating prohibitory orders, challenged the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court noted the case had remained pending since 2008 with little progress and that the offences were non-violent. Relying on Muniappan, the court found that prosecution under Section 188 IPC was procedurally defective as it required a complaint, not

What did the court decide?

Prosecution under C.C.No.2370 of 2009 and C.C.No.10135 of 2014 in Crime No.1347 of 2008 is quashed against all accused.

S.Riyaz Basha Vs the Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 08.10.2020

¶3

PRONOUNCED ON : 12.10.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.24433 of 2015

¶7

and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

S.Riyaz Basha ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
D.2 Anna Salai Police Station,
Chennai – 600002. ... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.C.No.2370 of 2009
on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai –
8 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankara Subbu
For Respondent: Mr.L.Charles
Government Advocate
ORDER

¶9

It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.12.2008, A1 to A62 gathered near General Patters Road, Chennai, in violation of prohibitory orders and shouted slogans in support of Srilankan Tamils and burnt three effigies. The Police arrested them and they were later released on bail. In this connection, the Police registered a case in Crime No.1347 of 2008 and after completing the investigation, filed a final report in C.C.No.2370 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 147, 143, 188, 285 IPC, Section 41 C.P. Act r/w., Section 7(1) (a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, against 62 accused, for quashing which, the petitioner herein, who is accused No.61, is before this Court.

¶10

Heard, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Charles, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

Report called for, from the Trial Court, shows that the Police were able to serve summons only on A1, A18, A35, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A36, A38 and A61 and summons have not been served on the other

¶12

accused. Therefore, the case against the six accused, as when summons were served, has been split up as C.C.No.10135 of 2014.

¶13

In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case pending on the file of the Trial Court indefinitely. The offence had taken place in the year 2008 and we are now in the year 2020, without any progress in the case.

¶14

It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had vandalised or caused damage to any property. The accused assembled, shouted slogans, burnt three effigies and subjected themselves to arrest non-violently. The final report does not even say where effigies were burnt. This is not to say that the accused had not committed any offence. It is trite that for prosecuting a person under Section 188 IPC, complaint has to be filed by the Officer concerned and a final report cannot be filed. (See “Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2010(3) MLJ (Crl) 702 (SC)]).

¶15

In such view of the matter, interests of justice will not suffer if the prosecution as against all the accused, is quashed. Normally, the Government itself will withdraw such cases. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the prosecutions in C.C.No.2370 of 2009 and C.C.No.10135 of 2014 in D.2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime No.1347 of 2008, are hereby quashed, as against all the accused. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 8

¶19

2.The Inspector of Police, D.2 Anna Salai Police Station, Chennai – 600002.

¶20

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.

¶21

rr(co) krd 3/11

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.24433 of 2015

¶23

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

S.Riyaz Basha v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Riyaz Basha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Santhanamary, Vs Mr.Karthik Sivaraman

Mrs.K.Lakshmi, Aged 56 Years Vs Inspector of Police

B.Arokkiaraj, Vs M/S.Padma Karthik

P.R. Shanmugam Vs the State Rep. by

Dr.K.Vasudevan Vs Mrs.S.Prasanna

Kay Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Suri Green Ventilation Systems