Dismissed

T.Nithesh v. State Rep by

Madras HC18 Oct 2022CRL OP/5882/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The court observed that the police had filed a closure report with further action dropped and served an RCS notice. Deeming the petition infructuous, the court dismissed it and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed as infructuous; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

T.Nithesh Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.5882 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. No.3791 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.5882 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. No.3791 of 2021

¶7

1.T.Nithesh

¶8

2.Thiyagarajan

¶9

3.Pandiselvi

¶10

4.Vinothini

¶11

5.Nareshkumar

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

versus

¶14

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, W-13, All Women Police Station, Washermenpet, Chennai.

¶15

2.Suganya

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.9 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Ashok Kumar

¶19

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Damodaran

¶20

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

For Respondent No.2 : Mr.R.Y.George Williams

¶22

1/4

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.5882 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. No.3791 of 2021

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the FIR in

¶27

Crime No.9 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent Police.

¶28

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

¶29

the first respondent police, on instructions, would submit that in Crime No.9 of 2020, after completing investigation, the respondent police has filed a Closure Report as 'further action dropped' and RCS notice also served on the petitioners on 26.01.2021.

¶30

3. In view of the above, nothing survives for further

¶31

adjudication in the quash petition. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

18.10.2022

¶33

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes

¶34

sri

¶35

2/4

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.5882 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. No.3791 of 2021

¶38

¶39

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, W-13, All Women Police Station, Washermenpet, Chennai.

¶40

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶41

3/4

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.5882 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. No.3791 of 2021

¶44

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶45

sri

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.5882 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. No.3791 of 2021

¶47

18.10.2022 [1/2]

¶48

4/4

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

T.Nithesh v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Nithesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Jesudoss Vs State by

Narottam Dharawat Vs State Rep.by

Sivakumar Vs State Rep by

Jaghankeer Basha @ Jahangir Basha Vs State Rep by

Sanaullah Vs the State Rep.by Its

G.Yesudoss Vs State Rep.by