Dismissed

C.Vimaleswaran v. the State Rep by

Madras HC9 Jun 2022CRL OP/4307/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash a Charge Sheet lodged under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that a prima facie case existed and refused to evaluate the probative value of evidence at that stage, directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition to quash the Charge Sheet is dismissed and connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

C.Vimaleswaran Vs the State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4307 of 2022 and

¶6

Crl.M.P.Nos.2167 and 2168 and of 2022

¶7

C. Vimaleswaran ... Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State rep by The Inspector of Police, F3 Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai-600 034 (Crime No.401 of 2018)

¶10

Ezhilarasi

¶11

...Respondents/Complainants/

¶12

Defacto Complainants

¶13

PRAYER:

¶14

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet (final report) filed by the 1^st respondent in C.C.No.4013 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Gajendhra For Respondent-1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent-2 : NA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the Charge Sheet filed by the 1^st respondent in C.C.No.4013 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

¶18

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a Journalist, had published certain articles about the illegal activities of the officials in the police department and hence, false cases have been foisted against the petitioner in various police stations.

¶19

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

¶20

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted

¶21

appearing for the respondent police.

¶22

A perusal of the final report indicates that there are

¶23

certain materials available on record particularly, the alleged threat made to the defacto complainant through cell phone and records have been collected. Though, prima facie materials available in the record, the probative value of the evidence cannot be gone into at this stage. Hence, this Court is unable to persuade with such submissions.

¶24

In such view of the matter, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶25

The trial Court shall proceed and decide the case as per law as expeditiously as possible.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

ksa-2/anu

¶31

¶32

The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai

¶33

2.-Do through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶34

The Inspector of Police, F3 Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai-600 034

¶35

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.A.K.Gajendhra, Advocate, S.R.No.33825

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.4307 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2167 and 2168 and of 2022

¶38

AJS(CO) CT/01/07/2022

¶39

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

C.Vimaleswaran v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Vimaleswaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hazeena @ R.Srimathy Vs State Rep by

Murugan Vs State Rep by

G.Venkatesan Vs the Station House Officer

C.Vimaleswaran Vs the State Rep by

S.Suresh Kanna Vs the Commissioner of Police

Vinoth @ Chellasamy Vs State Rep by