Disposed

M.S.Raja v. State Rep by

Madras HC20 Feb 2020CRL OP/24453/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two criminal original petitions seeking quashing of an FIR allegedly based on a suicide complaint. Relying on settlement between parties, the Court directed petitioners to execute an affidavit for closure of the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to execute appropriate affidavit before law enforcing agency within two weeks for closure of the FIR; case disposed of.

M.S.Raja Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.24453 of 2014 and 4639 of 2019

¶6

1.M.S.Raja
2.N.Murugan ... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.24453/2014
V.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.4639/2019
Vs.
1.State Represented by
Inspector of Police,
Karumalai Kodal Police Station,
Salem District.
[Cr.No.343 of 2014]
2.S.Vimala ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.24453/2014
1.State by
Inspector of Police,
Karumalaikoodal Police Station,
Mettur Dam – 3,
Salem District.
[Cr.No.343 of 2014]
2.S.Vimala ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.4639/2019

¶7

Prayer in Crl.O.P.24453 of 2014:

¶8

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records of the First Information Report in Crime No.343 of 2014 on the file of the Karumalai Kodal Police Station, Salem District and to quash the same.

¶9

Prayer in Crl.O.P.4639 of 2019:

¶10

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records of the First Information Report in Crime No.343 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Salem District/ 1^st respondent herein and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioners :Mr.G.Sankaran

¶12

in Crl.O.P.24453 of 2014

¶13

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

¶14

Mr.M.R.Jothimanian in Crl.O.P.4639 of 2019

¶15

For Respondents: Mr.C.Iyyapparaj for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶16

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶17

These criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to call for the records of the First Information Report in Crime No.343 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Salem District and to quash the same.

¶18

2.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.24453 of 2014 are practicing Advocates and Legal Advisors of M/s.V.S.Enterprises. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4639 of 2019 is the owner of the property and Managing Director of M/s.V.S.Enterprises. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4639 of 2019 had purchased the property of M/s.Mettur Textiles Limited (Lot-G) under the Court auction on 08.03.2012 in Company Application No.3013 of 2007 in C.P.No.125 of 1988 and the possession was handed over to the petitioner by the Official Liquidator of Madras High Court on 18.06.2012.

¶19

3.The second respondent is the defacto complainant and she has lodged a complaint alleging that her husband has committed suicide due to the threat given by the accused for evicting the property. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.343 of 2014 was registered by the Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Salem District. Challenging the same, these petitions have been filed.

¶20

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4639 of 2019 would submit that even after possession was handed over to the petitioner, some of the persons who were in occupation of the property without any legal right created problem and hence, the company filed writ petition seeking Police Protection and the same was ordered by this Court by interim directions on 12.02.2014. Thereafter, peace committee meeting was held inbetween the petitioner company and the labourers, in which, the defacto complainant's husband and other labourers also participated and the company demanded minimum rent and majority of the labourers also agreed to pay the minimum rent, however, the defacto complainant's husband committed suicide and the defacto complainant lodged the complaint.

¶21

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

¶22

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.24453 of 2014 would submit that the petitioners are only Advocates and as Legal Advisers of the company, they participated in the peace committee meeting and they have nothing to do with the suicide committed by the defacto complainant's husband.

¶23

6.The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would jointly submit that during the pendancy of these petitions, the matter was settled inbetween the parties and would further submit that appropriate affidavit will be executed before the law enforcing agency for closure of the complaint.

¶24

7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that if the matter is settled inbetween the parties and if the parties execute appropriate affidavit before the law enforcing agency, then the law enforcing agency, after recording the affidavit, will close the complaint as 'further action dropped'.

¶25

8.In view of the above, no more adjudication is necessary. This Court directs the petitioners to execute appropriate affidavit before the law enforcing agency within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the law enforcing agency shall file appropriate report.

¶26

9.These criminal original petitions are accordingly disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶27

s/d-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶29

True Copy

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶31

pri

¶32

¶33

1.The Inspector of Police, Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Mettur Dam – 3, Salem District. [Cr.No.343 of 2014]

¶34

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

¶35

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

¶36

+1 CC to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate sr 14939.

¶37

+1 CC to Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, Advocate sr 15095

¶38

Crl.O.P.Nos.24453 of 2014 and 4639 of 2019

¶39

CP(CO)
SP(13/03/2020)

¶40

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

M.S.Raja v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Raja v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Ashokkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Saratha Vs Shoba

Sundari Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Rajendran Vs Tmt.Jaya

B.Murugan Vs State Rep.by

Poonsolai Vs Vadivelu