Allowed

Y.Ranjith v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Apr 2022CRL OP/1661/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash the First Information Report under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The court found no ingredients of the cited sections in the complaint and noted the petitioner's separation from the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 20219 is quashed as ingredients of Section 498A and 406 IPC are not made out.

Y.Ranjith Vs the Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1661 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.1050 of 2019

¶6

1.Y.Ranjith 2.Lalitha Bai 3.Yuvaraj 4.Anuratha

¶7

...Petitioner/Accused 1 to 4

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Inspector of Police, W-20, AWPS, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. (FIR No.10 of 2018) ...1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶10

2.R.Bharathi ...2^nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the First Respondent in FIR No.10 of 2018, dated 08.12.2018 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh For Respondent 1 : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2018, dated 08.12.2018 on the file of the First Respondent.

¶15

2.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that nowhere in the complaint the allegation of cruelty or preach of trust had been mentioned and hence, the ingredients of either Section 498A or 406 of IPC will not attract against the Petitioners and hence, the registration of FIR under these provisions is without any basis. He further submitted that the

¶16

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

¶17

First Petitioner and the Second Respondent/De-facto Complainant had been separated through decree of Civil Court and the Second Respondent/De-facto Complainant had also contracted second marriage. Therefore, he prays for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2018 registered against the Petitioners.

¶18

3.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the Prosecution vehemently opposed for allowing this Petition.

¶19

4.On perusal of the First Information Report, it is found that the ingredients of Section 498A and 406 of IPC are not at all made out. Further, the First Petitioner and the Second Respondent/De-facto Complainant had been separated through decree of Civil Court and the Second Respondent/De-facto Complainant had also contracted second marriage. Under these circumstances, the vehement objection of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) to quash the FIR is found unreasonable and unacceptable since no materials had been found in the complaint and in the First Information Report. Therefore, the First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2019 is liable to be quashed as the pendency of this First Information Report will not serve any purpose.

¶20

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2019 is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

SRM

¶26

¶27

The Inspector of Police, W-20, AWPS, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶28

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.1661 of 2019

¶30

PL (CO) PR (11/04/2022)

¶31

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

Y.Ranjith v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Ranjith 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

Suguna Vs the State Rep. by

R.Mohan Sundaram Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Raju Vs the State Rep. by

Sriram Vs the State Rep by Its

Kangayan Vs the State Rep. by

Shyam Vs the State Rep. by