Allowed

T.R.Silambarasan @ Str v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Feb 2022CRL OP/30141/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR. Relying on the final investigation report stating no evidence to prosecute, the court closed the petition and directed the Judicial Magistrate to pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition closed; directions issued to Judicial Magistrate to pass further orders based on final report.

T.R.Silambarasan @ Str Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.02.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No. 30141 of 2015 and M.P.No. 1 of 2015

¶6

T.R.Silambarasan @ STR S/o.T.Rajhendherr

¶7

...Petitioner/1^st Accused Vs.

¶8

1.The State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, C-2 Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore.

¶9

2.Mrs.Radhika, District Secretary, All India Democratic Women Association, No.109, Kattoor, Coimbatore. ...Respondents/Complainants

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in the First Information Report in Crime No.1031 of 2015 dated 12.12.2015 registered by the 1^st respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 4 r/w 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 under Section 509 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 as against the petitioner and quash the said First Information Report.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in the First Information Report in Crime No.1031 of 2015 dated 12.12.2015 registered by the 1^st respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 4 r/w of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 under Section 509 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 as against the petitioner and quash the same.

¶13

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Government Advocate produced a copy of the final

¶14

report submitted by the first respondent, wherein it is stated that upon investigation, there is no evidence to prosecute the petitioner against the offences alleged and therefore further action is dropped in this case. This was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.

¶15

In view of the further action dropped Report, nothing survives in this Criminal Original Petition. If no order is passed based on the further action dropped report so far, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbtore, is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders in the manner known to law.

¶16

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶17

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

Lpp

¶21

¶22

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.

¶23

2.The Inspector of Police, C-2 Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore.

¶24

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶25

Crl.O.P.No. 30141 of 2015

¶26

and M.P.No. 1 of 2015

¶27

AJB (CO) PR (24/02/2022)

¶28

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

T.R.Silambarasan @ Str v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R.Silambarasan @ Str 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

V.Balasubramanian Vs State Rep by

S.Latha Vs State Rep by

J.Vijayakumari, Vs State by

Dinesh Kumar Surana Vs Sunitha Surana

M/S.Lvr and Dong in Stone Ltd. Vs M/S.Universal Granites Industries P Ltd.

M.Selvam Vs R.Kumar