Dismissed

J.Srinivasan v. Mr.Dhanapal

Madras HC22 Sept 2021CRL OP/10121/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court dismissed the petition, directing parties to proceed with trial in the Magistrate court as issues could be tested via cross-examination. Court imposed a timeline for disposal. Quality is thin given the brief order and lack of substantive reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to proceed with trial; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; Magistrate directed to dispose of CC.No.253/2015 by 31.01.2022.

J.Srinivasan Vs Mr.Dhanapal — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

Crl.OP.No.10121/2015 & MP.Nos.1&2/2015 & Crl.MP.No.11697/2017

¶6

J.Srinivasan

¶7

... Petitioner/Accused

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.Mr.Dhanapal ...Respondent No.1/Defacto Complainant 2.The Inspector of Police Ariyalur Police Station Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. ... Respondent No.2

¶10

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District in connection with CC.No.253/2014 and quash the impugned complaint dated 08.02.2011 for the alleged offences under sections 294[b], 417, 427 and 506[ii] of the Indian Penal Code and all further proceedings.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.Mary Sowmi Rexi for M/s.Isaac Mohanlal For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

for M/s.Isaac Mohanlal

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(1) The petition has been filed seeking interference with further continuation of CC.No..253/2014 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, at Ariyalur.

¶15

(2) The grievance of the petitioner/accused is that the 1st respondent/defacto complainant had actually given a complaint before the 2nd respondent police, who after enquiring the same, had closed it as a ''Mistake of Fact''. Not letting the issue to rest at that, the 1st

¶16

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

¶17

respondent/defacto complainant had then approached the learned Judicial Magistrate at Ariyalur, and had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate went through the required procedure and thereafter, had thought, by an order dated 01.11.2014, it fit to take cognizance of the complaint and had issued summons to the petitioner herein. This has caused grievance to the petitioner who has now come to this court, filing the present petition, taking advantage of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking interference with further proceedings.

¶18

(3) A perusal of the complaint given by the 1st respondent/defacto complainant reveals that both the petitioner and the 1st respondent/defacto complainant are running a Cable TV Network in the very same area. The petitioner herein appears to have cut the connection with which the 1st respondent/defacto complainant was running the Cable TV and there was a wordy quarrel between the two of them, leading to lodging of a police complaint, which the 2nd respondent police had closed as ''Mistake of Fact''.

¶19

(4) Let the parties go before the Trial Court and agitate the issue during the course of trial. The petitioner herein can take advantage of the fact that the 2nd respondent/Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station at Ariyalur, had actually closed the complaint as ''Mistake of Fact'' and put that particular issue to the defacto complainant during cross-examination. The petitioner herein, may also during the course of cross-examination, put questions to the 1st respondent/defacto complainant regarding the actual loss suffered by the 1st respondent/defacto complainant since there is no mention about that particular fact in the complaint. The words said to have been uttered, may also be tested during the course of cross-examination.

¶20

(5) Having so many avenues to test the case of the defacto complainant, it would only be appropriate that the parties face trial. In fact, over the past six years, had the present petition not been kept pending by this Court, the matter would have ended either in acquittal or in conviction before the learned Judicial Magistrate well more three years before.

¶21

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

¶22

(6) In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed with a direction to the parties to go back to the Trial Court and participate in the trial proceedings. A direction is given to the learned Judicial Magistrate at Ariyalur, to move forward with CC.No.253/2015 and dispose of the same in the manner known to law, preferably on or before 31.01.2022. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

AP To.

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur. 2.The Inspector of Police Ariyalur Police Station Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶28

+1cc to M/s.Isacc Chamber, P.Godson Swaminath, Advocate Sr.49351

¶29

Crl.OP.No.10121/2015

¶30

nmi[co] srg 12/10/2021

¶31

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

J.Srinivasan v. Mr.Dhanapal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Srinivasan v. Mr.Dhanapal

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

Sriramulu, Vs the Director General of

B.Sathya Ganesh Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Santhosh Kumar Vs R.Ravichandran

Mr.J.Sasikumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

E.Rukmani, (FEMALE/65 Years) Vs State Represented by

Donald Serg Vs the Assistant Commissioner