The Madras High Court quashed an FIR in a property dispute where the complainant delayed filing the complaint by months. The Court noted the petitioner was on duty and absent during the alleged incident, deeming the filing baseless and mechanically registered.
The complaint in Cr.No.96 of 2018 filed by the Inspector of Police at Sozhatharam Police Station is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CRL.O.P.No.27900 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.16167 of 2018
Sagunthala ...Petitioner/ Accused (A8)
Versus
1.The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sozhatharam Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Cr.No.96/2018)
2.Kuppusamy
...Respondents/ Complainant & Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records from the file of the 1st respondent herein viz., Inspector of Police, Sozhatharam Police Station, Cuddalore Districtin Cr.No.96 of 2018, insofar as this petitioner is concerned and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
For RR1 : Mr.C.E.Pratp Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition to call for records from the file of the 1st respondent herein viz., Inspector of Police, Sozhatharam Police Station, Cuddalore District concerned in Cr.No.96 of 2018, insofar as this petitioner is concerned and quash the same.
Patta in favour of the father-in-law of the petitioner. Suddenly after a lapse of 30 years, the defacto complainant claimed right over the property without any substantial materials. Further in order to grab the property, the defacto complainant chosen to lodge a false complaint against the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.
the office only at 6.00 p.m and necessary document in that regard has also been filed along with the typed set of papers. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has not present at the scene of occurrence when the alleged offence is said to have taken place.
Assistant Registrar (CS-IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sk
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sozhatharam Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
+1cc to Mr.K.Balu, Advocate, S.R.No.52118
+1cc to Mr.R.Murali, Advocate, S.R.No.51886
CRL.O.P.No.27900 of 2018
SR(CO) SB(23/11/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed based on delay in filing complaint and absence of petitioner at the scene of occurrence.
Whether property dispute allegations justify quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the petitioner's alibi regarding her duty roster proves absence during the alleged offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sagunthala
The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sozhatharam Police Station, Cuddalore District
Kuppusamy
M.Dhandapani
C.J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
