Dismissed

Duraisamy, 45YRS, v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Dec 2021CRL OP/3283/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed to quash criminal proceedings arising from an offense involving a collusive partition suit. Finding the materials collected by the prosecution sufficient to show a concealment of fact, the Court held the trial must proceed and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the impugned proceedings were directed to continue for trial on merits.

Duraisamy, 45YRS, Vs Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No. 3283 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATE: 21.12.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No. 3283 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.2369 of 2017

¶7

Duraisamy

¶8

S/o.Krishna Moorthi ... Petitioner/ Accused 4

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State Represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode.

¶11

2.Dr.T.C.Gnanasekaran ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.131 Of 2014 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial

¶13

Magistrate, Erode.

¶14

For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Muthukumarasaamy For Respondents ... Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) for R1 Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri for R2

¶15

1/5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.No. 3283 of 2017

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.131 of 2014 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode for the offence under Section 120B, 420, 468,471, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.

¶20

The crux of the charge against the petitioners is that the first accused, who was the owner of the property having been purchased the same in the year 1985, sold the same to the de facto complainant on 24.02.2010. Thereafter, all the family members of the accused colluded together and filed a suit for partition of the said property and obtained a decree fraudulently to defeat the rights of the purchaser.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for first respondent and the learned counsel for second respondent.

¶22

This Court perused the entire materials filed in the form of a typedset of documents. The materials collected by the prosecution reveal that the first accused having sold the property stood in her name, conspired with other

¶23

2/5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.O.P.No. 3283 of 2017

¶26

family members, namely her husband (A2), daughter(A3) and son (A4) and filed a collusive suit for partition by making A3 as plaintiff and A1, A2 and A4 as defendants, wherein defendants remained ex parte and obtained an ex parte collusive partition decree by suppressing the fact that the property was already sold to another person thereby they committed the offences referred to above. Having regard to the nature of the materials collected, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case in which trial has to see its logical end and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The trial

¶28

Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

21.12.2021

¶30

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order gpa/gba To

¶31

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.

¶32

The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch,

¶33

3/5

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No. 3283 of 2017

¶36

Erode.

¶37

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

4/5

¶40

Crl.O.P.No. 3283 of 2017

¶41

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J gba/gpa

¶42

Crl.O.P.No. 3283 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.2369 of 2017

¶43

21.12.2021

¶44

5/5

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Duraisamy, 45YRS, v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duraisamy, 45YRS, v. 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

Ramasamy, M/70 Years Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cum

S.Kumar (M-36) Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

V.Sivarasu, Vs State Represented by

Sarangapani, 72 Yrs, Vs K.Kalaiselvi, 43 Yrs

S.Palanivel, Aged 40 Years, A1 Vs State by

R.Ramesh, M/a 44 Years, Vs S.Bhavani, F/a 39 Years