Dismissed

D.P.Uma Shankar v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Apr 2022CRL OP/19868/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR. The quashal prayer was rejected because the investigating officer had gathered sufficient evidence to prosecute and the trial Court had accepted the final report and taken cognizance. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed/closed.

D.P.Uma Shankar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19868 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.9298 of 2016

¶8

D.P. Uma Shankar ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep., by

¶11

The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore - 18.

¶12

2.S. Sankaranarayana ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.43 of 2014 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Coimbatore and quash the same insofar as the case against the petitioner/1st accused is concerned.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Rajasekaran For Respondent : Mr. R. Murthi, Government Advocate

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This is a petition to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.43 of 2014 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Coimbatore and quash the same.

¶17

When the matter is taken up, learned Government Advocate submitted that the investigation in this case is over, final report was filed for the offences under Sections 120b, 420, 406, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused in this case and the Court had taken cognizance in C.C.No.8/2021, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, No.7, Coimbatore.

¶18

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

¶19

The fact that the investigating officer found there are materials to prosecute the accused in this case for the offences under Sections 120b, 420, 406, 468 and 471 IPC and the Court had accepted the final report filed and took cognizance of the matter, this Court finds that the prayer for quashing the FIR cannot be entertained. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

¶26

1.The District Crime Branch, Coimbatore.

¶27

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore – 18.

¶28

3. The Public Prosecutor

¶29

High Court, Madras 104.

¶30

+1 CC to Mr.K.Rajasekaran, Advocate sr 26045.

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.19868 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.9298 of 2016

¶32

SKM(CO)

¶33

SP(04/05/2022)

¶34

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

D.P.Uma Shankar v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.P.Uma Shankar v. the Sub 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

M/S.Mohan Breweries and Vs the State Bank of Hyderabad

State Rep. by Vs Tr.P.Madhesan, Male Aged

M.Manimaran Vs State Rep by

Vijaya, Age 46 Years, Vs Y. Jeyalakshmi

A.Senthilkumar, M/42 Years Vs Hemalatha

Silver Touch India Vs The Commissioner of Police