Dismissed

K.Vijayan v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC16 Dec 2021CRL OP/30492/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed quashing petitions filed regarding criminal complaints alleging property dispute and assault. Trial proceedings were underway; court directed trial judge to conclude cases within four months despite lack of grievous injuries.

What did the court decide?

Order directed trial judge to dispose of C.C.No.100 of 2013 and C.C.No.27 of 2018 within four months. Quashing petitions dismissed.

K.Vijayan Vs the State Rep by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

CRL.O.P.NOS.30492 & 30595 OF 2019 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.16512, 16514, 16588 AND 16589 OF 2019

¶6

1.K.Vijayan 2.K.Ravichandran 3.A.Sivakumar 4.L.Krishnamoorthy 5.M.Rajadran .. Petitioners/Accused A1 to A5 in Crl.O.P.No.30492/20219 1.Alex Mani @ Mani 2.K.Ravichandran 3.K.Vijayan 4.P.Ayyakannu 5.G.Venkatesan 6.S.Elumalai .. Petitioners/Accused in Crl.O.P.No.30595/20219 Versus 1. State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai. ... 1^st Respondent/ Complainant in Both Crl.O.P.s 2. P.Ananthan .. 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant in Both Crl.O.P.s

¶7

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.30492 of 2019:

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for records pertaining to charge sheet in C.C.No.100 of 2013, now on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, (ML) Tiruvannamalai and quash the same.

¶9

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

¶10

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.30595 of 2019:

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for records pertaining to charge sheet in C.C.No.27 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan

¶13

For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.M.Sridhar

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

The petitioners are praying to quash C.C.No.100 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, (ML) Tiruvannamalai and C.C.No.27 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have trespassed into the alleged property and attacked the 2^nd respondent and his wife with deadly weapons and also threatened them with dire consequences. Already, the suit is pending from the year 2012, in O.S.No.12 of 2012 before the District Court for permanent injunction. The petitioners have claimed the property as per class (ii) legal heirs of the Hindu Succession Act.

¶18

Heard Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, already a Civil suit is pending from the year 2012, due to which, the 2^nd respondent gave a false complaint against them. He further submitted that the allegation is that the petitioners have trespassed into the alleged property and attacked the complainant and his wife with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries. But, there are no grievous injuries as charged by the prosecution, and only simple injury was sustained by the petitioners. Hence, he prays to quash the CC proceedings against the petitioners.

¶20

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

¶21

5.The learned counsel for the second respondent / defacto complainant submitted that already the trial has begun. There are totally 9 witnesses, among which, three witnesses were examined and the case was posted for further evidence. Due to the pendency of trial case, the petitioners not been crossexamined the witnesses.

¶22

About the nature of injury it shall be adjudicated only on considering both oral and documentary evidence So, the petitioners are entitled to workout their remedy before the trial Court itself. Since the cases is for the year 2012, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of C.C.No.100 of 2013 and C.C.No.27 of 2018, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶23

Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

rri

¶29

¶30

The Judicial Magistrate,

¶31

Fast Track Court, (ML) Tiruvannamalai.

¶32

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai.

¶33

The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

¶34

The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

¶35

Crl.O.P.Nos.30492 & 30595 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16512, 16514, 16588 and 16589 of 2019

¶36

SSN(CO) PM/22/02/2022

¶37

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

K.Vijayan v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijayan v. the State Rep by Its

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

Dilli Vs State Rep by

Prakash Vs State Rep by

D.Ananthababu Vs State Represented by

A.Sivadasan Vs the State Rep.by

T.M.Maran Vs State Rep by

Kokilambal Vs the State Rep by