Dismissed

Senthilkumar (M/42) v. State Rep. by

Madras HC30 Nov 2021CRL OP/19963/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.Ps filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 294 (b), 493, 313 and 506 (i) IPC. The court found allegations against A2 to A6 general in nature with no specific threat causing apprehension to life. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Senthilkumar (M/42) Vs State Rep. by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 30.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NOS.19963 & 4446 OF 2017

¶6

& CRL.M.P.NOS.12043, 12044 & 3309 OF 2017

¶7

Senthil Kumar 2. Subha 3. Lieutenant Colonel Selvanayagam Samsu

¶8

... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.19963 of 2017

¶9

S.Saraswathi

¶10

... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.4446 of 2017

¶11

¶12

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, T14 Police Station Mangadu, Mangadu, Kancheepuram District. (Crime No.991 of 2015) 2. A.Anitha

¶13

... Respondents in both the Crl.O.P.'s

¶14

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to crime No.991 of 2015 on the file of the Mangadu Police Station, Mangadu and quash the same.

¶15

For petitioners : Mr.S.Prabhu For Respondents : R1 – Mr.R.Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) R2 – Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

These petitions have been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.991 of 2015 on the file of Mangadu Police Station, Mangadu filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 493, 313 and 506 (i) of I.P.C.

¶19

The crux of the allegation is that A1 having moved with the defacto complainant for seven years and caused the miscarriage and thereafter other accused over phone threatened the defacto complainant.

¶20

Heard both sides. As far as the allegation against the A2 to A6 is concerned, they are in general nature and threat is made over phone. What is the nature of threat, which is in fact caused any apprehension to the life of the petitioner is silent. Except general allegations against A2 to A6, there is no serious allegation of alleged miscarriage etc., as against them. In such view of the matter, the prosecution shall proceed with investigation and if any materials are unearthed as against A1, file a report. As far as other accused are concerned, the prosecution very well has a discretion to file a negative report, if no offence is made out against them.

¶21

Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

vrc / kbs

¶27

¶28

The Inspector of Police,

¶29

T14 Police Station Mangadu,

¶30

Mangadu, Kancheepuram District.

¶31

The Public Prosecutor,

¶32

High Court, Madras.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali, Advocate, S.R.No.63220

¶34

Crl.O.P.Nos.19963 & 4446 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.12043, 12044 & 3309 of 2017

¶35

PL(CO) RLP(10/12/2021)

¶36

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

Senthilkumar (M/42) v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthilkumar (M/42) 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

Ajit George, 43 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Ramar, AGE-57 Vs the State Rep by

Muthurajan, M/a 38 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Arivalagan, Vs K.Malathi

Murugan, 45 Yrs, Vs State by

S.BALASUBRAMANIAM,36 Yrs, Vs State Rep by