Partly allowed

Venugopal, Aged 32 Years v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Nov 2021CRL OP/20096/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to partially quash the criminal complaint. While the prosecution against the first accused was continued due to serious allegations, the complaint against the second accused was quashed as the oral threat did not constitute an offence under Section 506(ii) IPC.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings against the second accused; continuation of investigation against the first accused with a report within one month.

Venugopal, Aged 32 Years Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20096 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No. 12110 of 2017

¶8

Venugopal ..Petitioner/2^nd Accused

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,

¶11

Polur,

¶12

Tiruvannamalai District. ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Sarala ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) call for the records in Crime No.05 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.S.Jawahar

¶16

For respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar for R1 Government Advocate (crl.side) No appearance for R2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the complaint in Crime No.05 of 2016, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶19

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.R.Kishore Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent. There is no representation on behald of the second respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶21

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

¶22

submitted that the alleged physical affairs had taken place with the consent of the second respondent. Hence, offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be made out. Therefore, investigation against A.2 will not serve any purpose of investigation.

¶23

The allegation against A.1 is serious. Allegation against A.2, who is the brother of A.1, threatened the defacto complainant orally. First Information Report itself indicate that A.1 and defacto complainant were on a physical relationship with each other. On the promise made by the first accused, the defacto complainant had physical affairs with him. Whether there is a misconception of fact or not has to be investigated by the Investigation Officer.

¶24

As far as A.2 is concerned, he has allegedly threatened the defacto complainant verbally. Such allegation even if taken as a proof, same would not constitute an offence of Section 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code. Hence F.I.R agains A.2 is quashed. Prosecution against A.1 is to be continued and investigation Officer should file a report within a period of month.

¶25

In view of the above observation and direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

shk/mvs

¶31

¶32

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶33

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.B.Jawahar, Advocate SR.No.61447

¶35

Crl.O.P.No. 20096 of 2017

¶36

GJ(CO)

¶37

GN(23/12/2021)

¶38

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

Venugopal, Aged 32 Years v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venugopal, Aged 32 Years 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

M.Mohan, S/O.R.Murugappan, Vs v.P.Krishnamurthi

R.Ravishankar, M/A-51 Vs a.Thennarasu

T.Raghupathy, M/A.48 Years Vs State Rep.by

Madasamy, 68 Yrs, Vs Inspector of Police

S.a.K.Nazar M/a 53 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Baskaran, M/a 52 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its