Allowed

Gowtham v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Apr 2021CRL OP/2711/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Per curiam order allowing a quash petition under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that continuation of proceedings against the Juvenile-turned-Adult petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law given his youth, lack of antecedents, and non-trade nature of the offense.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in Crime No.275 of 2018 and the Charge Sheet filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Cuddalore are quashed with regard to all accused.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :27.04.2021 CORAM:

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶3

Crl.OP.No.2711 of 2021 CRL.MP.No.1492 of 2021

¶4

Gowtham

¶5

... Petitioner/Accused 3

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶8

Crime No.275 of 2018

¶9

... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.275 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner herein.

¶11

This Petitioner / A3 in Crime No.275 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 430, 379 of IPC and Section 21(1) of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 has filed this quash petition.

¶12

The gist of the case is that on 08.06.2018, the defacto complainant, Sub Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station received information that using bullock cart, some persons are illegally transporting sand from Thenpennnaiyaru. On the basis of the information, police party reached the spot, where, the petitioner along with other two accused were transporting half unit of river sand in a bullock cart without any valid licence and they also attempted to flew away. They were questioned and their identity was recorded. A1 in this case had driven the bullock cart and the petitioner along with other accused have loaded the river sand to the bullock cart. Hence they were arrested, bullock cart and sand were seized.

¶13

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is that the petitioner at the time of occurrence

¶14

was aged about 21 years and now he is aged 24 years. He has completed ITI course in Polytechnic and he had also appeared for competitive exams. Due to the pendency of the petition, the petitioner's future is getting affected and that even if the petitioner is qualified in competitive exams, due to the pendency of the petition he would not be considered for appointment. Further, the petitioner has got no other previous case. The petitioner comes from a poor agricultural family. He is the only one who studied up to this level in his family. Hence prayed for allowing this petition.

¶15

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in this case, three accused hail from Thirukandeswaram. They illegally transported river sand using bullock cart. He submitted that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has also been filed as early as on 12.07.2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Cuddalore and the case is to be transported to the Sub Court.

¶16

5. Considered the submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that the occurrence had taken place on 08.06.2018. Though, it is submitted that Charge Sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Cuddalore as early as on 12.07.2018, it is yet to be forwarded to the Sub Court. From the materials, it is seen that they have taken some sand for construction of bathroom and it was not for any trade. The petitioner has got no antecedents. Considering the fact that the petitioner's future is in question due to the pendency of the petition and that the petitioner was not involved in any other case before, this Court finds continuation of proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Taking similar view in respect of other accused also in this case, all further proceedings in Crime No.275 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police and the pursuant Charge Sheet, dated 12.07.2018 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Cuddalore is quashed with regard to all the accused. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(co)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

mbi To

¶21

1.The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶22

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

¶23

2.The Judicial Magistrate I, Cuddalore.

¶24

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.A.Murugavel, Advocate SR.No. 26195

¶26

Crl.OP.No.2711 of 2021 CRL.MP.No.1492 of 2021

¶27

A.SK(09.06.2021)

¶28

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

Gowtham v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowtham 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

Ramachandriran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

R.Kamatchi Vs M.Ramasamy

Radha Krishnan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.Manimegalai Vs State by

Rohan @ Rohan D Premkumar Vs the State Rep.by

I.Fathima Nachiyar Vs the State Rep.by