Dismissed

B.Murugan, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/4759/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition for quashing a Police case was dismissed for default due to non-appearance of parties. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed. This was an order at the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 10.12.2021.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition No.4759 of 2019 and connected Miscellaneous Petition No.2930 of 2019 were dismissed for default.

B.Murugan, Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.4759 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.12.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.4759 of 2019 and CRL.MP.(MD)No.2930 of 2019

¶7

1.B.Murugan

¶8

2.Karupayee

¶9

: Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thallakulam, Madurai District. : 1st Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶12

2.Sivagamy : 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No.67 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and quash the same as illegal.

¶14

For Petitioners : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam,

¶15

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1.

¶16

: No Appearance for R2.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 22.11.2021, there was no representation for the petitioners as well as for the second respondent and hence, the matter was ordered to be posted today under the caption “for dismissal.”

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the investigation has already been completed and final report is also made ready and since interim stay has been granted by this Court, they have not filed the report before the concerned Court.

¶20

Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners as well as the second respondent. Therefore, this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/2

¶22

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.4759 of 2019

¶23

Criminal Original Petition is dismissed for default. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶24

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

SSL

¶28

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶29

¶30

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thallakulam, Madurai District.

¶31

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.4759 of 2019 and CRL.MP.(MD)No.2930 of 2019 10.12.2021

¶33

NSN(CO) KB(30.12.2021) 2P 3C

¶34

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

¶35

2/2

B.Murugan, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Murugan, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Anusiya Vs Mr.T.R.Karthick

Sathyasudhan Vs the Inspector General of

Ganesan, Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Rajkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Ramanathan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Dhanapandi, S/O.Pandi, Vs the Inspector of Police