Dismissed

Abi, Aged 29 Years, v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC26 Oct 2021CRL OP/5541/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in S.C. No. 79/2014 involving alleged damage to a ration shop. The High Court held that materials on record prima facie showed petitioner involvement and dismissed the petition, directing the trial court to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing the criminal original petition and closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

Abi, Aged 29 Years, Vs the State Rep. by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.5541 OF 2017 & CRL.M.P.NO.4136 OF 2017

¶6

¶7

Karthi ... Petitioners

¶8

The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station, Salem District. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER:-

¶10

Petition filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records in S.C.No:79/14 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge cum Sub-ordinate Judge, Mettur and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioners : M/S.M.Mariappan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the S.C.No.79/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge cum Subordinate Judge, Mettur.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were not at all involved in the incident and their names were also not shown in the FIR. However, it has been shown wrongly in the charge sheet, and in

¶16

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

¶17

161 Cr.P.C. Statement, the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) has wrongly stated the name of the petitioners. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the charge sheet was filed without any material evidence and since the charge sheet was filed wrongly in the names of the petitioners, the proceedings in SC No.79 of 2014 are liable to be quashed.

¶18

Per contra, Mr.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that in the FIR, it has been clearly stated that some unknown people had damaged the ration shop of the defacto complainant and during the investigation, the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) has stated that the petitioners were involved in the incident and they had caused the damage. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken on file by the Sessions Court, and therefore, he submits that at this stage, the proceedings in SC cannot be quashed, and further, there are sufficient materials available to proceed against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶19

Heard the the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other persons had damaged the public property (i.e) ration shop. The complaint was filed by the Secretary of Fair Price Shop, wherein, he stated that some unknown persons entered the ration shop and set fire and caused damage. Further, the VAO was examined and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C. statement, wherein, he has categorically stated that the petitioners and other accused were also involved in the incident. On the basis of the complaint and the statement of VAO only, the respondent/'Police appeared to have filed the charge sheet against the petitioners. Therefore, the materials available on record would prima facie show that the petitioners were alleged to have been involved in the incident.

¶21

Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot interfere and let the petitioners scot-free, and whether the petitioners were involved in the incident and caused damage, can be proved only after a full fledged trial.

¶22

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of this case. The petitioners are at liberty to raise their defence and prove their innocence before the Court after being subjected to trial. The Court below is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.

¶23

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

¶24

For the reasons stated above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

jd/sd

¶30

¶31

The Additional Sessions Judge cum Sub-ordinate Judge, Mettur.

¶32

The Inspector of Police Kolathur Police Station Salem District.

¶33

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

CRL.O.P.NO.5541 OF 2017 & CRL.M.P.NO.4136 OF 2017

¶35

AJS(CO) PBS/22/11/2021

¶36

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

Abi, Aged 29 Years, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abi, Aged 29 Years, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

S.Sathyamoorthy, Aged 55 Years Vs v.Jayaraman Aged 62 Years

Mr.Balasubramanian, Vs the State Rep. by