Dismissed

S.Vasudevan, Aged 60 Yrs v. State Rep.by

Madras HC22 Nov 2021CRL OP/6222/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of inconsistencies in the charge sheet and the death of the complainant, holding that contradictions cannot be examined at this stage and the trial court is the appropriate forum given the injury nature.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in S.C.No.57 of 2017 dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; petitioners presence dispensed with except for trial stages.

S.Vasudevan, Aged 60 Yrs Vs State Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. No.6222 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4620 & 4619 of 2017

¶6

1.S.Vasudevan

¶7

2.V.Sarasu ..Petitioners/Accused 1&2

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Magudamchavadi Police Station, Salem District.

¶10

Deputy Superintendent of Police Sankari Sub Division Salem District.

¶11

Thambidurai ..Respondents/Complainant/Defacto Complainant

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records with relating to the charge sheet dated 31.08.2016 and quash the proceedings in S.C.No.57 of 2017 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge at Salem.

¶13

For Petitioners: Mr.A.V.Raja

¶14

For Respondents: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

¶15

Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)for R1 & R2 Mr.K.Arulmuruganandam for R3

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the charge sheet dated 31.08.2016 and quash the proceedings in S.C.No.57 of 2017 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge at Salem.

¶18

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

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire case has been falsely alleged against the petitioner in a money transaction. Further, there were serious contradictions in the FIR, statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and timing of the alleged occurrence. In a nut shell, there are 28 errors found in the Charge Sheet. Though on the face of it, it appears that there is some money transaction which leads to filing of FIR, one of the statement given by the Doctor indicate that the defacto complainant has suffered lacerated injuries about 7x1x1.5cm.

¶21

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the contradictions and omissions or inconsistencies cannot be gone into at this stage while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Though, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant that, the defacto complainant is died, the same itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. Though the entire complaint appears to be arising out of money transaction, the possibility of implicating the accused with Special Act cannot be ruled out. At the same time, considering the nature of injuries, it is a fit case to go before the Trial Court. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioners. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioners are dispensed with except for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., or on any other date as may be required by the trial Court. They shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, when they are examined in Chief.

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar msv To

¶25

The Inspector of Police, Magudamchavadi Police Station, Salem District.

¶26

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

¶27

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankari Sub Division, Salem District.

¶28

The Principal District Judge Salem.

¶29

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶30

Crl. O.P. No.6222 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4619 & 4620 of 2017

¶31

SR(CO) RGA(13/12/2021)

¶32

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

S.Vasudevan, Aged 60 Yrs v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vasudevan, Aged 60 Yrs 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

A.Samuel Aron, M/40 Vs State Rep. by

Jeevitha Gopinath, M/a 29 Yrs, Vs Suresh Kumar Jindal

Mr.Jaganathan, Aged 72 Years, Vs R.Nandhini

Banumathi, F/A-52 Vs the State by

Zahir Hussain (44)(A-2) Vs the State by

R.Selvakumar, MALE/31 Years Vs the State Rep. by