Dismissed

A.Sahaya Maclean Augustine Roy @ Maklin Ray v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Feb 2020CRL OP(MD)/2704/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes nothing and dismisses the petition for quashing the FIR. The court held that the FIR disclosed prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, so it could not be quashed at the threshold. The First Respondent was directed to complete the investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing dismissed; First Respondent directed to complete investigation within three months.

A.Sahaya Maclean Augustine Roy @ Maklin Ray Vs The… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2704 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2704 of 2020

¶4

and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.1406 of 2020

¶5

A.Sahaya Maclean Augustine Roy @ Makiln Ray ... Petitioner/ 2^nd Accused

¶6

¶7

1.The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.33 of 2018)

¶8

2.M.Ramesh ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.33 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same as illegal in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balasubramanian For 1 st Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.33 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent.

¶13

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR. Without any basis, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No.33 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 120(b) and 506(i) of IPC. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

¶14

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent Police would submit that investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

¶15

Perused the materials available on record.

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2704 of 2020

¶19

It is seen from the First Information Report that there is specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated. The FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, it cannot be quashed at the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such, this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

¶20

6.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.33 of 2018 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

vsg

¶25

¶26

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶27

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 2704 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 1406 of 2020 17.02.2020

¶29

VB(28.02.2020) 2P 3C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

A.Sahaya Maclean Augustine Roy @ Maklin Ray v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sahaya Maclean Augustine Roy @ Maklin Ray 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananth Vs The Sub- Inspector of Police

M. Mariyaselvam Vs The Superintendent of police

V.K.G. Mani Vs The Inspector of Police

Vasuki Vs Manoharan

Karuppaiah Vs The Inspector of Police

Manivel Vs The Inspector of Police