Allowed

Vijayakumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC22 Mar 2021CRL OP/5569/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners for offences under the IPC and City Police Act related to a protest against NEET examinations. The court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

What did the court decide?

Procedings in C.C. No.8299 of 2017 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, are quashed.

Vijayakumar Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.03.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P No.5569 of 2021 and Crl.M.P Nos.3580 & 3582 of 2021

¶4

1.Vijayakumar, S/o.Nachimuthu

¶5

2.Sugaip Mujagithin, S/o.Mohamad Pillai

¶6

3.Karthish Kumar, S/o.Krishnakutty

¶7

4.Rajendraprasath, S/o.Rajesh

¶8

5.Sathish, S/o.Athitan

¶9

6.Balamurugan, S/o.Selvaraj

¶10

7.Jerish Biju, S/o.Biju

¶11

8.Jhon, S/o.Vinsent 9.Tharani, D/o.Palani 10.Mani, S/o.Kumar .. Petitioners/Accused

¶12

vs.

¶13

State represented by The Inspector of Police, K-1, Sembium Police Station, Chennai. .. Respondent/Prosecuting Complainant

¶14

Jaganathan, Inspector of Police-749, Sembium Police Station, Chennai .. Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶15

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.8299 of 2017 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore and to quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶18

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

ORDER

¶20

On consent given by either parties, the Criminal Original Petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

¶21

The petitioners are said to have indulged in a protest against the NEET examinations. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, an FIR came to be registered for an offence under Sections 143, 353 and 188 of IPC and Section 75

¶22

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

¶23

of the City Police Act and Section 7 (1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005. Pursuant to the completion of investigation, a final report has been filed before the Court below against the petitioners for an offence under Sections 143, 145, 147 & 353 of IPC.

¶24

Heard Mr.R.Thirumoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶25

In the considered view of this Court, the petitioners have merely held a protest against the NEET examination. The offences for which the final report has been filed against the petitioners have not made out in the charge sheet and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners will lead to abuse of process of Court.

¶26

In the result, the proceedings in C.C. No.8299 of 2017 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, is hereby quashed and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) /TRUE COPY/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The Inspector of Police, K-1, Sembium Police Station, Chennai. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras. +1cc to MR.R.THIRUMOORTHY, ADVOCATE , SR.NO. 18172

¶28

Crl.O.P No.5569 of 2021 and Crl.M.P Nos.3580 & 3582 of 2021

¶29

GPL(CO) KKN 16.04.2021

¶30

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

Vijayakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar 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

Pista Devi Vs Pankaj Kumar Bansil ,I.a.S.

C.Suguna Vs Manali Benefit Fund Ltd.

T.Pravin Kumar Vs D.Jagannathan,Ias

Sandhyavalli Nithyanandam Vs the State Rep. by

State Rep.by Vs D.Senthilkumar

T.Velmurugan Vs State Rep by