Partly allowed

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

Madras HC29 Nov 2021CRL OP/25760/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the second accused petitioner in a dispute over an electricity connection due to insufficient evidence of abuse and threats. The prosecution against the first accused was not addressed separately as he had died.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2017 insofar as it relates to the second accused; closure of connected miscellaneous petitions.

V.Ramar, AGE-57 Vs the State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.11.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.25760 of 2017 and

¶6

Crl.M.P.Nos.14843 & 14844 of 2017

¶7

1.V.Ramar

¶8

2.R.Elamaran

¶9

... Petitioners/Accused 1and2

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thirumanur Police Station, Thirumanur, Ariyalur District.

¶12

2.Valarmathi

¶13

2.Chockalingam ... Respondents/Complainant

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the complaint in C.C.No.25 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, and quash the said complaint as against the petitioners/accused 1 and 2.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

¶16

For R1 : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 & R3 : Mr.A.R.Suresh

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report in C.C.No.25 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶18

2.The case of the prosecution is that a dispute arose between the de facto complainant and the accused with regard to

¶19

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

¶20

connecting electricity line in respect of de facto complainant's house to the Electricity Meter, through the premises of the accused, which was objected by the accused. As a result of wordy quarrel between the parties, A1 caused injuries on Chockalingam and A2 abused and threatened him.

¶21

3.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶22

4.On a perusal of the final report filed by the prosecution, it is seen that the charge against A1 is that he abused the witnesses and also caused grievous injury. A2 is said to have abused and threatened the de facto complainant. From the materials unearthed by the prosecution, it is seen that, only stray allegations of abuse and threat have been made against A2 and this Court is of the view that the same is not sufficient to proceed against A2. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, continuance of prosecution as against A2 is a sheer waste of time and abuse of process of law.

¶23

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, is quashed, insofar as the 2^nd accused alone is concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

6.It is further stated that A1 has died. The said submission is recorded. The prosecution shall verify as to whether A1 has died and if so, file necessary Death Certificate before the trial Court.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

mkn

¶30

¶31

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur.

¶32

The Inspector of Police, Thirumanur Police Station, Thirumanur, Ariyalur District.

¶33

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

¶34

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.62254

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.25760 of 2017

¶37

SVI(CO) CT 09/12/2021

¶38

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ramar, AGE-57 v. the 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

T Sournavel, Vs S. Krishnaveni

Venugopal, Aged 32 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Raja, Aged 41 Yrs Vs S.Jayapal

Senthil Tsp M/a 65 Years, Vs Reliance Capital Limited

K. Rajagopal, 69 Yrs, Vs Deputy Superintendent of

Vanitha Devi, Vs K.R. Eswaramurthy