Dismissed

Mr.Ramesh (M/33) v. State Rep.by

Madras HC15 Nov 2021CRL OP/14260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a criminal original petition seeking to quash a final report under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that prima-facie material existed showing injury caused by the petitioner, making it a matter of evidence for the trial court. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the final report allowed; Criminal Original Petition and connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed/closed.

Mr.Ramesh (M/33) Vs State Rep.by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.14260 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.8966 and 9075 of 2017

¶6

(Through Video Conference)

Mr.Ramesh

....Petitioner

Vs.

1.State Rep by Inspector of Police, S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai.

¶11

2.David Masilamani ....Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.422 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar For R1 : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report filed for the offence under Section 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC in C.C.No.422 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

¶16

2.It is a case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the defacto complainant is none other than the father in law of the petitioner. Though the allegation indicates that there were matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife, the fact remains that the petitioner involved in physical violence against his father in law.

¶17

3.In such view of the matter, there is a prima-facie https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ materials available on record to show he has caused injury and

¶18

whether the offence charged is made out or not, it is matter of evidence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the final report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CS-IX)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

rpp/gd

¶24

¶25

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

¶26

2.-do- through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chennai.

¶27

3.The Inspector of Police, S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai.

¶28

4.The Public Prosecutor Hight Court of madras.

¶29

Crl.O.P. No.14260 of 2017

¶30

KV (CO) PR (01/12/2021)

¶31

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

Mr.Ramesh (M/33) v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Ramesh (M/33) v. State Rep.by

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

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs B.Ravi

S.Venkatesan, M/AGE-38 Vs State Rep.by

Susi Kalaiyarasan, 53 Yrs, Vs Inspector of Police

P.Selvakumar Vs The Superintendent of Police

P.Selvakumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Malathi @ Jenny @ Isabella, Vs the Inspector of Police