Two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of an FIR. The defacto complainant expressed no objection to quashing, leading the Court to allow the petitions and quash the FIR.
The impugned First Information Report in Crime No.201 of 2016 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2310 of 2020:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.10.2020 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.2310 and 4490 of 2020
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2310 of 2020:
Muthu ... Petitioner/A4 Vs. 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Illayankudi Police Station, Sivagangai District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.201 of 2016) 2.Baskaran ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4490 of 2020:
1.Mathan 2.Jegan ... Petitioners/A1 & A3 Vs. 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Illayankudi Police Station, Sivagangai District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.201 of 2016) 2.Baskaran ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.201 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, dated 14.07.2016 and quash the same against the petitioners.
(in both petitions) For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vikram For R1 : Mr.M.V.Chandrasekar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Sonai (in Crl.OP(MD)No.2310 of 2020) For R2 : Mr.S.M.Sonai (in Crl.OP(MD)No.4490 of 2020) For R2 : Mr.B.Mahendra Rajan
1/2
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2310 of 2020:
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.201 of 2016 registered on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
2.Baskaran is the defacto complainant. He is present before this Court through web hearing. He has been duly identified by the first respondent police. He has no objection for quashing the impugned First Information Report. Therefore, the impugned First Information Report is quashed. These Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
// True Copy //
das
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:-
1.The Inspector of Police, Illayankudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.2310 and 4490 of 2020
SJ(CO) NR (10/12/2020) 2P : 3C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.201 of 2016 against the petitioners invoking Section 482 CrPC?
Whether the defacto complainant's consent for quashing justifies allowing the petitions?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Muthu
Baskaran
The State represented by The Inspector of Police
Baskaran
Mathan
Jegan
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
