Dismissed

Shyam v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC4 Apr 2022CRL OP/1975/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed two Criminal Original Petitions seeking quashing of cases under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners alleged club licence violations were false, but the court held such defences must be tried before the trial court. Proceedings were not quashed.

What did the court decide?

Directing the trial court to proceed with the trial and take up the defence of licence violation before it. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Shyam Vs the State Rep. by — Cheque Dishonour | 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.NOS.1975 & 1984 OF 2019 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.1251, 1253, 1258 & 1261 OF 2019

¶6

Mr.Shyam

¶7

... Petitioner/Accused in Crl.O.P.No.1975/2019

¶8

Mr.Hariharan

¶9

Mr.Babu

¶10

Mr.R.Chandrasekaran

¶11

... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 in Crl.O.P.No.1984/2019

¶12

Vs.

¶13

The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, F-4, Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai. (Cr. Nos. 322 & 250 of 2018)

¶14

... 1^st Respondent/ Complainant in both

¶15

Mr.Vivek Kumar Sub Inspector of Police, F-4, Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai.

¶16

... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant in Crl.O.P.No.1975/2019

¶17

Mr.Sundaramurthy Inspector of Police, F-3 Nungambakkam Police Station, Law and Order, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶18

... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant in Crl.O.P.No.1984/2019

¶19

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

¶20

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, prayed to call for the records in C.C.Nos.9175 & 9118 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

¶21

For Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

The Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the case in C.C.Nos.9175 & 9118 of 2018 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶24

The learned counsel for the Petitioners had invited attention of this Court to the licence granted by the City Police to the Petitioners and they had been paying fees regularly for the licence granted to them. He had been running a Club under the name of Laakshaya Manamagizhmandram. While so, the Respondent raided the premises and found that they had been violating the terms and conditions of the licence. Therefore, registered the case against the Petitioners.

¶25

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that as per the licence they had given the number of membership of the club as 392 permanent active members. Therefore, only members of the club were consuming intoxicated drinks. Therefore, there is no violation.

¶26

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) objects to the line of the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and disputes the fact relying on the typed set of papers in Page 14 relied by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He further submits that not only the violation of conditions regarding the guest, there were unauthorized persons found to have been consuming Alcohol at the time of raid and the licence was granted to the club under the name of Laakshaya Manamagizhmandram whereas on the date of the raid, it was found that there was a board by name of Glee. Therefore, that was unauthorized.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that

¶29

what had been argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is to be accepted and considered as valuable defence before the trial Court, during trial and recording of evidence before the trial Court and not at this stage to quash the proceedings. He relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020 (3) SCC 317 in the case of Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others regarding exercising discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the charge sheet has to be sparingly used.

¶30

In the light of the submission of the learned Government

¶31

Advocate (Crl. Side), the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners cannot at all be accepted regarding Page 14 of the typed set of papers. Therefore, the same is rejected.

¶32

These Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed with direction to take defence by the learned counsel for the Petitioners before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the trial without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while disposing of the case. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

¶39

The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶40

Egmore, Chennai – 08.

¶41

The Inspector of Police,

¶42

F-4, Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai.

¶43

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶44

+2ccs to M/s.M.Mohammed Rafi, Advocate, S.R.Nos.22906 & 22907

¶45

Crl.O.P.Nos.1975 & 1984 of 2019

¶46

NMI(CO)

¶47

RLP(19/04/2022)

¶48

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

Shyam v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Y.Ranjith Vs the Inspector of Police

Sriram Vs the State Rep by Its

Kangayan Vs the State Rep. by