Dismissed

E.Tamilarasan v. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Oct 2021CRL OP/17529/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court held that the petitioner's submissions were factual in nature and required investigation, thus falling outside the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

E.Tamilarasan Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.17529 of 2021 and

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.9621 of 2021

¶7

E.Tamilarasan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. The State,

¶10

Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station,

Salem District,

Crime No.9 of 2018.

2. V.Kumaresan

3. Bakiyam

Mala ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.9 of 2018 on the file of the 1 st respondent and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chakkaravarthy For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.9 of 2018, dated 02.06.2018, on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

¶20

2.The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.9 of 2020, for offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not at all committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, there is no allegation or any material evidence against

¶22

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

¶23

the petitioner and the no ingredients of the offence alleged is made out. He further submitted that the petitioner's father late Ilayaperumal was giving trouble to the welfare and benefit of the villagers. After the demise of his father, some of the villagers had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner as though they had given money for getting patta.

¶24

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that the petitioner cheated around 51 persons by receiving amount of Rs.30,000/- and above for getting patta by showing the government land. Totally, the petitioner had collected Rs.15,00,000/- from the victims and he handed over forged patta copies to the victims. On receipt of the same, the victims approached the revenue authorities and found that the petitioner committed forgery and cheated them. He further submitted that the investigation in this case completed and charge sheet would be filed shortly. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

5.The submissions put forward by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner are purely factual in nature and this Court cannot venture into conducting a mini investigation into the matter and it therefore does not fall within the ambit of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Any finding on facts will also have a bearing on the investigation conducted by the respondent Police.

¶26

6.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation conducted by the respondent Police at this stage. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

vv2

¶32

¶33

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Salem District.

¶34

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

¶35

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.17529 of 2021

¶37

SS (CO) K.RK. (12.11.2021)

¶38

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

E.Tamilarasan v. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Tamilarasan v. the State Rep by 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

Thangamani Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

C.Hemalatha Vs N.Rajasekar

Sagunthala Vs State Rep.by

Ashokan @ Ashok Vs the State Rep.by

Arjunan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

T.Alagarsamy Vs the State Rep.by