Dismissed

G.Gokul, v. State Rep by

Madras HC22 Dec 2021CRL OP/27557/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition seeking quashment of proceedings. It held that since a counter case is pending and final reports exist, the impugned case must be tried simultaneously with the connected case. Consequently, the original and connected petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to decide C.C.Nos. 121 and 133 of 2017 simultaneously; Connected CMps closed.

G.Gokul, Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22/12/2021

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.27557 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.15739 AND 15740 OF 2017

¶6

G.Gokul ... Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The State, Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.285 of 2017) ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Lakshmi ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶10

PRAYER:-

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to C.C.No.121 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Villupuram District and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1

¶14

Mr.C.D.Modhi for R2

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.121 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on 5/5/2017, around 5 p.m., when the defacto complainant/second petitioner rearing a

¶17

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

¶18

cow in the Casuarina grove of the petitioner, she was threatened with dire consequences. Hence a complaint was registered in Crime No.285 of 2017, punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 354 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶20

submitted that the occurrence took place on 5/5/2017 but the complaint was given on 14/5/2017. There was an enormous delay in lodging a complaint by the defacto complainant/second respondent. He further submitted that this case is nothing but falsely foisted and therefore, prays for quashment of C.C.No.121 of 2017.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent submitted that counter case is also pending in C.C.No.133 of 2017. Final report has been filed by the Investigation Officer in both the cases, viz., C.C.Nos.121 and 133 of 2017.

¶22

After hearing the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Court is not inclined to entertain this instant Criminal Original Petition.

¶23

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Trial Court is directed to decide both the cases, viz., C.C.Nos.121 and 133 of 2017, simultaneously and dispose of the cases, as per law. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

mvs

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

¶30

The Inspector of Police Mailam Police Station Villupuram District.

¶31

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

¶32

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.69001

¶34

CRL.O.P.NO.27557 OF 2017

¶35

SSD(CO) PBS/21/01/2022

¶36

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

G.Gokul, v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Gokul, 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

Ajay Durrani, M/A.50 Yrs Vs State Rep. by

S.Gajalakshmi, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Akilandeswari Vs Inspector of Police

M/S.Pavans Hall Mark Testing Vs Bureau of Indian Standards

Thiru.Jayanthilal Surana, M/a Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Emmanuvel Vasantharaj, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu