Allowed

Niamadullah v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Sept 2021CRL OP/17923/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under C.C.No.832/2010 in a trespass case after noting the death of the defacto complainant and other prosecution witnesses, rendering conviction remote. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.832/2010 pending before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Niamadullah Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 29.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

Crl.OP.No.17923/2016 & Crl.MP.No.8517/2016

¶6

[Video Conferencing]

¶7

1.Niamadullah

¶8

2.Masjid Bai ...Petitioners/A1 & A2

¶9

Versus

¶10

Inspector of Police (Law and Order) B2, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai – 600 104.

¶11

G.K.Harihararajan ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.832/2010 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Arun Kumar For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(1) The petitioners herein are the landlords of a portion wherein the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent herein was a tenant.

¶16

(2) The petitioners herein had filed RCOP.No.85/2008 and thereafter filed RCA.No.297/2015. Both the petition and the appeal were dismissed with orders passed adverse to the petitioners herein. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent herein/defacto complainant had filed a petition to deposit the monthly rent into the Court. When these litigations were pending, the 2^nd respondent herein/defacto complainant had given a complaint that the petitioners had trespassed

¶17

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

¶18

into his tenanted portion and had taken away certain things. The prosecution rests its case on the statement made by the 2^nd respondent herein/defacto complainant. There are also two other witnesses, viz., L.W.3 and L.W.4, who claim that they also had knowledge about the incident.

¶19

(3) But, it transpires that the 2^nd respondent herein/defacto complainant had died on 04.06.2021 and the Death Certificate in that regard, had also been forwarded by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent. Similarly, L.W.3 and L.W.4 had also died on 04.05.2021 and 06.03.2016 respectively. The prosecution would never he able to establish the case of the 2^nd respondent herein/defacto complainant. When the possibility of conviction is remote, it would only be appropriate that the Court steps in and puts an end to further proceedings.

¶20

(4) Accordingly, the present Criminal Original Petition stands allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.832/2010, now pending on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP

¶22

¶23

The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶24

The Inspector of Police (Law and Order)

¶25

B2, Esplanade Police Station,

¶26

Chennai – 600 104.

¶27

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.S.Veeraraghavan, Advocate, S.R.No.50565

¶29

Crl.OP.No.17923/2016 SSI(CO) RGA(12/10/2021)

¶30

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

Niamadullah v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niamadullah 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

C.Perumal Vs v.S.Manian

Jayaprakash Babu Kodimi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

Rajasekaran Vs the State by the

Sekar Vs Marimuthu

Sudha Vs State by

Malliga, F/45 Years Vs State Rep. by