Dismissed

S.Venugopal v. State Rep. by

Madras HC8 Apr 2022CRL OP/4662/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR and initial stay on investigation. The Court held that continuing misuse of the Human Rights Commission emblem constituted an abuse of process and directed the police to proceed with the investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with directions to investigate and file final report within three months.

S.Venugopal Vs State Rep. by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4662 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.2761 of 2019

¶6

S.Venugopal ... Petitioner/Accused

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep.by the Inspector of Police Hosur Town Police Station Krishnagiri District.

¶9

... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No.209 of 2016 dated 14.03.2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Hosur Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition had been filed to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No.209 of 2016 dated 14.03.2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Hosur Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his arguments by placing reliance on the order granting bail to the Petitioner by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in Crl.M.P.No.680 of 2016, wherein, she had observed that nothing had been recovered from the Accused. Therefore, bail was granted to him.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner herein by

¶16

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

¶17

placing reliance on the above observations of the learned Sessions Judge, seeks to quash the First Information Report. He further submitted that at the time of filing of this Criminal Original Petition, interim stay was granted against the Investigating Officer.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that investigation could not be proceeded as there is an interim stay.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner replies that the case was registered in the year 2016 and now we are in 2022. He seeks to quash the First Information Report by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of State of Haryana and Ors Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors, reported in 1992 AIR 604 and the guidelines issued in Para No.8.1 in (a) & (e).

¶20

Though the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is acceptable, but at the same time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of using or exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., liberally by the High Court.

¶21

It is the case of the Prosecution that the Petitioner herein is alleged to have used the ID cards under the guise of Human Rights Commission. Therefore, the Respondent Police registered the case against him and he was arrested. After obtaining bail from the Sessions Court, he had approached this Court to quash the First Information Report in the year 2019. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim stay against the Investigating Officer, till the disposal of this Criminal Original Petition. The Petitioner, who is the accused before the Court concerned had succeeded in dragging the case and still it cannot be said that no material has been collected.

¶22

The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is found unacceptable. The case has been registered by the Police against the Accused for misusing the emblem under the guise of “Human Rights Commission”. Already this Court ceased the matter after referring the case by initiating action against the people, who are running controversial Human Rights Commission unlawful/illegal (Katapanchayat). As per the discussion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is an abuse of process of the Court on indulging in such kind of acts, which deprecates the Court time and again. Hence, this petition is dismissed with directions to the Police to proceed with the investigation and file a final report at the earliest before the Competent Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

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

¶24

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

dna

¶30

¶31

The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

¶32

The Inspector of Police Hosur Town Police Station Krishnagiri District.

¶33

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.M.P.Saravanan, Advocate, S.R.No.24374

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.4662 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.2761 of 2019

¶36

PVS(CO) SU(27/05/2022)

¶37

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

S.Venugopal v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Venugopal v. 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

R.Muni Krishnaih Naidu Vs the Stater Rep by

Sujatha Vs the State Rep by

Sanjay Kaul Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Nainar Kani Vs the Inspector of Police

Mathew Samuel Vs State Rep by

A.Shylendar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu