Allowed

Ayyanar v. State Rep.by

Madras HC3 Mar 2021CRL OP/353/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the FIR pertaining to offences under Section 363, 366, and 366(A) IPC as far as the petitioner was concerned, finding that there was no material in the recorded statement to implicate him and continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.19 of 2020 was quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The final report was directed to be altered by deleting the petitioner's name.

Ayyanar Vs State Rep.by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.353 of 2021 and Crl.MP.No.173 of 2021

¶6

Ayyanar ...Petitioner/Accused-4
.Vs.
1.State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.19 of 2020)
..1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.Sundarrajan
.. 2nd Respondent/
De facto Complainant

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the first information report in Crime No.19 of 2020, pending investigation on the file of the 1st resplendent police, quash the same as far as this petitioner is concerned.

¶8

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.19 of 2020, pending investigation on the file of the 1 st respondent.

¶9

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

¶10

2.The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the 2 nd respondent developed a relationship with A-1, who is the son of the petitioner. It is stated that the daughter of the 2 nd respondent at the relevant point of time was a minor. On 31.10.2019, the daughter of the 2 nd respondent went missing from the house. It is stated that she eloped along with A-1 and in the course of the same transaction, the friends of A-1 viz; A-2 and A-3 also were involved. Ultimately, the daughter of the 2 nd respondent is said to have married the son of the petitioner on 01.11.2020. A complaint was given by the parents of the victim girl and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.19/2020, by the 1 st respondent for an offence under Section 363, 366 and 366 (A) IPC.

¶11

3.The petitioner who is the father of A-1 has been added as A-4 in this case on the ground that he permitted the daughter of the 2 nd respondent and A-1, to stay at his house.

¶12

4.Heard Mr.A.Balamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1 st respondent and Mr.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 nd respondent.

¶13

5.This Court carefully went through the 164 statement recorded from the victim girl. This is the only material that is put against the petitioner. A reading of the 164 statement shows that the victim girl nowhere has spoken about the involvement of the petitioner in the entire incident. There is a stray reference made by the victim girl to the effect that after the marriage was performed between A-1 and the victim girl, he is said to have called the parents and had spoken with them.

¶14

6.In the considered view of this Court, this stray allegation made in the 164 statement can never be a material to rope in the petitioner as an accused person in this case. In fact, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will amount to an abuse of process of law.

¶15

7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the 1 st respondent Police submitted that the investigation has been completed and a final report has been filed on 13.01.2021, before the Mahila Court, Krishnagiri in FR 4/21 and this petitioner has been arrayed as A-4 in the final report.

¶16

8.In view of the above findings given by this Court, the FIR in Crime No.19 of 2020, on the file of the 1st respondent is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶17

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

¶18

There shall be a direction to the 1 st respondent to alter the final report by deleting the name of the petitioner and file the altered final report before the Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, immediately on receipt of the final report shall act upon the same within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶19

9.This criminal original petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2. Mahila Court,
Krishnagiri.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr.A.Balamurugan, Advocate sr 13371.
+1 CC to Mr.S.Praveen Kumar, Advocate sr 13782.

¶21

Crl.OP.No.353 of 2021

¶22

RGN(CO) SP(08/03/2021)

¶23

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

Ayyanar v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyanar 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

A.R.Manikandan Vs G.Balasubramaniam

P.Parimaladevi Vs State Rep by

G.Mahaveer Chand Bafna Vs State Rep by

M/S.Thirupathi Brothers, Vs a.M.Manoji

V.Anbazhagan, M/54 Vs the City Public Prosecutor

V.Anbazhagan, M/54 Vs the City Public Prosecutor