Dismissed

S.BALASUBRAMANIAM,36 Yrs, v. State Rep by

Madras HC30 Nov 2021CRL OP/27346/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought quashing of a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a matrimonial offence case. The court noted substantial evidence had already been examined and dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court alone should appreciate the evidence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

S.BALASUBRAMANIAM,36 Yrs, Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 30.11.2021

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. No.27346 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

Crl. M.P.No.15666 & 15667 of 2017

¶8

S.Balasubramaniam 2. M.Shanmugam 3. Lakshmi

¶9

...Petitioners/ Accused 1 to 3

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Erode, Erode District, Crime No.11/2016.

¶12

2.Chandraprabha ...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.117 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.

¶14

For Petitioner ... Mr.C.S.Saravanan

¶15

For Respondents ... Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1 No appearance for R2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition has been filed to quash the final report filed in C.C.No.117 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506(i) of IPC.

¶18

Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is before this Court, he is not ready to argue the matter.

¶19

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

¶20

However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that out of seven witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined and only two witnesses are remaining to be examined before the trial Court.

¶21

As the trial Court has already commenced and substantial part of witnesses have already been examined, it is within the domain of the trial Court to appreciate the evidence tendered before it and come to a conclusion whether the evidence tendered before it constitute the offence for which the petitioners have been charged.

¶22

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

gpa/gba

¶28

¶29

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.

¶30

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Erode, Erode District, Crime No.11/2016.

¶31

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

¶32

Crl. O.P. No.27346 of 2017 and Crl. M.P.No.15666 & 15667 of 2017

¶33

AD (CO) PR (10/12/2021)

¶34

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

S.BALASUBRAMANIAM,36 Yrs, v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.BALASUBRAMANIAM,36 Yrs, 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

Senthilkumar (M/42) Vs State Rep. by

R.Arivalagan, Vs K.Malathi

Murugan, 45 Yrs, Vs State by