Dismissed

Allimuthu v. State Rep. by

Madras HC13 Jun 2022CRL OP/1065/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Cr.O.P. seeking quashing of an FIR registered alleging offences under IPC. The petitioner claimed the FIR was false and foisted after a motor vehicle stop. The Court held that the petitioner's grounds constitute valid defences suitable for trial and held the present case unfit for quashing since investigation was complete.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed; the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

Allimuthu Vs State Rep. by — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.06.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1065 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.679 of 2021

¶6

Allimuthu

¶7

... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Versus

¶8

State rep.by The Inspector of Police Gingee Police Station Gingee- Post Villupuram District. (Crime No.482 of 2019) ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Jaisankar ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.482 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 353 and 506(ii) IPC dated 28.08.2019 on the file of the first Respondent and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Veerasekaran

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.L.Baskaran for R1

¶13

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.482 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 353 and 506(ii) IPC dated 28.08.2019 on the file of the first Respondent and quash the same.

¶16

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his arguments. As per the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner and his son were arrayed as Accused in Crime No.482 of 2019 on the file of the Gingee Police Station. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 28.08.2019, there was vehicle check up by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

¶17

Gingee, where the Petitioner was found not wearing helmet. Therefore, a fine of Rs.200/- was imposed and he had paid the same, through challan. While returning for the second time, the vehicle was inspected and this time they said that R.C.Book was not there. When R.C.Book was produced, the Traffic Police had mentioned that there was no vehicle Insurance and it has lapsed. The second time, it was demanded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, for which, the Petitioner demanded receipt for payment based on the violation of Motor Vehicles Act, which was refused by the Police. Therefore, they had threatened the Petitioner and his son that they will foist a false case as though, the Petitioner had threatened the Police Officials inside the Police Station. Based on which, the First Information Report in Crime No.482 of 2019, Gingee Police was registered. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks to quash the First Information Report.

¶18

The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently objects the line of the arguments stating that here, the case was that, Sub-Inspector of Police has recorded the statements of the Constable, who was admitted in hospital based on which, the First Information Report was registered and the Accused were arrested and forwarded to remand. The facts of the case attracts Section 353 of IPC. Therefore, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently objects to quash the First Information Report. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently objects to quash the First Information Report also on the ground that investigation had been completed and final report had been filed before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee. For the reasons best known to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingeee, the case had not been taken on file.

¶19

Further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that based on the occurrence that had taken place, the Petitioner/Allimuthu had preferred a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram Police Station regarding the conduct of the Police Officers in foisting a false case. Therefore, he seeks to quash the First Information Report.

¶20

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the case is arising out of Petty offence registered under Motor Vehicle Act by the Traffic Police and subsequently, the Petitioner while demanding the receipt for violation of Motor Vehicle Act, a false case had been registered against the Petitioner and his son as though they threatened the Police officials.

¶21

The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently objected to quash the First Information Report stating that the case had been investigated and final report

¶22

laid before the Court. It is yet to be taken on file. Considering the submission of the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) investigation is completed and final report has been filed before the Court, it is not the fit case for quashing the First Information Report at this stage.

¶23

Considering the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner what had been raised by the Petitioner is found to be valuable defence, which they can agitate before the Trial Court at the time of trial, at the stage of framing charges without seeking adjournment or discharge. It is not a fit case for quashing the First Information Report as investigation has been completed.

¶24

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

dna

¶30

¶31

The Inspector of Police Gingee Police Station Gingee- Post Villupuram District. (Crime No.482 of 2019)

¶32

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

Copy to:

¶34

The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram Police Station, Villupuram.

¶35

+1cc to M/s.D.Veerasekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.34797

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.1065 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.679 of 2021

¶37

PMK(CO) UMA(12/07/2022)

Allimuthu v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allimuthu 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

M.Thilagar Vs the State Rep.by

Pappathi Vs K.M.Gunasekaran

Sanjay a.Kanna Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Govindaswamy Vs the Station House Officer

G.Salman Vs State Rep. by Its

S.Gananathan Vs Ravindra Kumar