Dismissed

Selvam, Aged 32 Years, v. State Rep. by Its

Madras HC13 Dec 2021CRL OP/5173/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition seeking quashing of the final report under Section 482 CrPC, the Court held that prima facie material exists to proceed against the accused for offences under Sections 407 and 306 IPC. The petition was dismissed, directing the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; direction issued to Trial Court to dispose of main case expeditiously; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Selvam, Aged 32 Years, Vs State Rep. by Its — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. No.5173 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3840 and 3841 of 2017

¶6

1.Selvam

¶7

2.Uma ...Petitioners/Accused Vs.

¶8

1.State represented by its Inspector of Police, Avalurpet Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.207/2016)

¶9

2.Nagammal ...Respondents/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records relating to SC No.50 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Fast Track Mahalir Court, Villupuram District and quash the same.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to SC No.50 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Fast Track Mahalir Court, Villupuram District and quash the same.

¶13

The crux of the charge on the accused is that accused A1 and A2 due to property dispute, abused the victim and coerced her to commit suicide stating that she should die instead of living. It is the specific charge of the prosecution that on 05.06.2016, the accused abused the victim in public and abused her in foul language. As a result, the victim self-immolated by pouring kerosene and committed suicide. Thereby, the final report has been filed.

¶14

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

¶15

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific overt act against the petitioners and there is no material available on record against the petitioners to proceed with the case.

¶16

He further submitted that the allegations in the charge sheet will not constitute any offence and therefore, the same has to be quashed.

¶17

Heard the learned Government(Crl.Side) for the first respondent and there is no appearance on behalf of the second respondent.

¶18

This Court has perused the entire materials available on record. The prosecution has examined 19 witnesses and collected materials. The witnesses' statements also indicate that overt act against the accused are made out. Whether such act attracts offences under Sections 407 and 306 IPC is a matter of evidence. It is the domain of the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence and decide the issue on materials. Therefore, at this stage when the prima facie materials are available against the accused to proceed against them for the offence charged, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers under Section 482 to quash the final report.

¶19

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

msv To 1.The Inspector of Police, Avalurpet Police Station,Villupuram District.

¶24

The Fast Track Mahalir Court, Villupuram District

¶25

The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras. +1 cc to Mr.S.Arivazhagan, Advocate Sr.NO.66199 +1 cc to Mr.Vijay Shankar, Advocate Sr.NO. 66295

¶26

Crl. O.P. No.5173 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3840 and 3841 of 2017 MG(CO) A.SK(07.01.2022)

¶27

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

Selvam, Aged 32 Years, v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvam, Aged 32 Years, v. 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

D. Durai @ Pasumpondurai, Vs Jesu, 52 Yrs

Mr.Kuriakose MATHEW,M/A.53 Yrs Vs the State Rep by

Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs Durai Gopi @ Gopirajan

V.Babu (M/40 Years) Vs State Represented by

C.M.Hariharan Vs Josethomas

M.Bavika Jain, Aged 36 Years Vs the State Represented by