Disposed

Nithiya, Aged 39 Years, v. State Rep. by Its

Madras HC25 Oct 2021CRL OP/5184/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a quashing petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner sought to quash FIR proceedings in a family trespass dispute. The first respondent submitted that the case was closed under Section 468 CrPC due to delay in filing the charge sheet. The court held that since the FIR closed, no further adjudication was required.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition disposed of; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Nithiya, Aged 39 Years, Vs State Rep. by Its — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.10.2021

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶4

CRL.O.P.NO.5184 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NO.3850 OF 2017

Nithiya

... Petitioner

State Rep. by

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. Crime No.619 of 2016

¶9

Akalya ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER:-

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.619 of 2016, pending investigation on the file of the first respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar For R1 : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.Babu Rangasamy

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.619 of 2016, pending investigation on the file of the first respondent.

¶15

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvannamalai vide order dated 05.09.2017 in

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.P.No.836 of 2017, has closed the case in Crime No.619 of 2016, under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that the charge sheet has not filed within a stipulated time. He further submitted that he makes his submission on getting instructions through phone from the Mr.Chandrasekaran, Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶18

3. The present case has been filed to quash the F.I.R, which was filed by the respondent-sister for trespassing in her property. It is a family dispute, therefore after registering F.I.R, the complainant has not proceeded with the case and the first respondent Police was not able to file the charge sheet in time. Since the F.I.R. itself closed, no further adjudication in required in this petition.

¶19

4. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

rst

¶25

¶26

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶27

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 104.

¶28

CRL.O.P.NO.5184 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NO.3850 OF 2017

¶29

GSM(CO) PBS/11/11/2021

¶30

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

Nithiya, Aged 39 Years, v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithiya, Aged 39 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

Arulmurugan Vs Tmt.Arulmani

Dr.Karthik, Aged 28 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Adhimoolam, Aged 42 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Muthumani, Aged 53 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Vcan Network (P) Ltd. Vs State Rep.by

Selvaraj, Aged 38 Yrs Vs the State of Tamil Nadu