Dismissed

S.Palanisami v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC30 Mar 2022CRL OP/10675/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings where accused were added after the initial incident. Held that such defence matters must be considered by the trial court after evidence, and quashing at this stage is premature.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; direction to trial court to consider defence of persons A-5 and A-6 while framing charges.

S.Palanisami Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.03.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.10675 OF 2019 AND CRL.M.P.NO.5487 OF 2019

¶6

S.Palanisami ... Petitioner/5^th Accused

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Veeraganur Police Station, Salem.

¶9

Angusamy ... Respondent/Complainant/ De-facto Complainant

¶10

PRAYER:-

¶11

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in the proceedings in S.C.No.278 of 2018 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Attur, Salem and quash the same insofar as the Petitioner/A5 is concerned.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandrasudan

¶13

For Respondent 1 : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to call for the records in the proceedings in S.C.No.278 of 2018 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Attur, Salem and quash the same insofar as the Petitioner/A6 is concerned.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A6 submits that as per the Accident Register only two persons were involved in the

¶17

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

¶18

alleged occurrence. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the copy of the Accident Register filed along with the typed set of papers and also relied on the sentence in the complaint. Subsequently, as an after thought, the Investigation Officer had filed an alteration report whereby the provisions under Section 147 and 148 of IPC had been included. Only to facilitate the same, falsely they arrayed two other accused A5 and A6. At the admission stage, this Court had granted stay regarding A6 alone. Since this Petitioner had been arrayed as an Accused later on, as an after thought, by the Investigation Officer, he prays for quashing the proceeding in S.C.No.278 of 2018 in respect of this Petitioner/A6.

¶19

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the prosecution by way of reply submitted that what are all submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be considered at this stage in this Criminal Original Petition and it is a matter of evidence before the trial Court since the case had been committed to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Attur, Salem. Now, the valuable defence cannot be considered to quash the sessions case.

¶20

Considering the line of argument made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Attur, Salem, to consider the defence of the persons A-5 and A-6, who had been arrayed as Accused, as an after thought by the prosecution, while framing charges. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

SRM

¶26

¶27

The Assistant Sessions Judge, Attur, Salem.

¶28

The Inspector of Police,

¶29

Veeraganur Police Station, Salem.

¶30

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

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

CRL.O.P.NO.10675 OF 2019

¶33

EV(CO) PBS/10/05/2022

¶34

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

S.Palanisami v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Palanisami v. the Inspector of Police

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

R.Subramanian Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Chitra Vs the State Rep Byi Ts

Banumathi Vs the Insepctor of Police

N.a.Mohideen Kapoor Vs State by

Vee Ess Forgings Private Limited Vs United Steel Corporation

M/S.a.P.R.Juniors Bagging and Loding Contractors Vs M/S.K.R.Metal Engineering Company, Ch