Petitioners sought quashing of a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming lack of overt acts. The High Court held objections suitable for trial and dismissed the petition as unmaintainable.
Petition dismissed as not maintainable; connected misc. petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRL.O.P.NO.1272 OF 2019 AND CRL.M.P.NO.835 OF 2019
1.Mohamed Arif 2.Mymoon Beevee ... Petitioners
Vs.
State Rep.by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Panruti Cuddalore District Crime No.2 of 2017. ... Respondent
PRAYER:
Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records of the charge sheet in C.C.No.70 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Cuddalore and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanamoorthy For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition had been filed to call for the records of the charge sheet in C.C.No.70 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Cuddalore and quash the same.
of the complaint and FIR, no offence is attracted against the Petitioners herein. Hence, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks to quash the charge sheet.
vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and submitted that admittedly, there are averments regarding the overt acts of the Petitioners. Further, in the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had collected materials and based on the same, the final report of the investigation is laid before the Court of the learned Additional Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Cuddalore, which was taken cognizance, by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.70 of 2017. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently objects to quash the charge sheet.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dna
To
Crl.O.P.No.1272 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.835 of 2019
JPL(CO) PM/27/05/2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when overt acts are admitted in the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶20
Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradhesh , (2015) 11 SCC 260 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohamed Arif
Mymoon Beevee
State
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Parties & counsel
