Dismissed

B.Sirajdeen v. State Rep.by

Madras HC5 Mar 2021CRL OP/4044/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that the matter requires investigation to find the real aggressor and the petitioners made factual contentions, so the Court declines to interfere with the police investigation.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashings dismissed; police directed to complete investigation within two months.

B.Sirajdeen Vs State Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4044 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.2493 of 2021

¶6

B.Sirajdeen
2. Pareveen ... Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
1.State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Erode Taluk Police Station, Erode.
(Crime No.925 of 2020) ...Respondent/Complainant
2.S.Dharmaraj ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in
Crime No.925 of 2020 pending on the file of the 1st Respondent
i.e Erode Taluk Police Station and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mohan For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate for R1 O R D E R

¶8

This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.925 of 2020 pending on the file of the 1st Respondent i.e Erode Taluk Police Station and quash the same.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

¶10

3.The contentions put forward by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are purely factual in nature and this Court cannot venture into conducting a mini investigation into the matter and it therefore does not fall within the ambit of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Any finding on facts will also have a bearing on the investigation conducted by the respondent Police.

¶11

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

¶12

4.This is a matter which involves a case and counter where the FIR has been registered in Crime Nos.923 and 925 of 2020. It has to be investigated by the 1^st respondent police in order to find out the real aggressor and a final report has to be filed.

¶13

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation conducted by the respondent Police at this stage.

¶14

6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the respondent Police is directed to proceed further with the investigation in accordance with law and complete the investigation and file a final report or a closure report, as the case may be, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssr
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Erode Taluk Police Station,
Erode.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,Chennai.

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.4044 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.2493 of 2021 sky[co] srg 31/03/2021

¶17

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

B.Sirajdeen v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sirajdeen 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

G.Ravichandran Vs The Commissioner

D.Ezhilarasi @ Meera Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate

Abuthaheer Vs the Inspector of Police

Askar Ali Vs State Rep.by

V.Prabhu Vs State by

R.Raghavan Vs Baskaran