Dismissed

Soniya Mehaboob Mohammed v. the State Rep by

Madras HC22 Jun 2022CRL OP/7560/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC before the Madras High Court. The police had already closed the FIR citing lack of sufficient material and mistake of fact. The petition was dismissed as the submission regarding FIR closure was recorded.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Soniya Mehaboob Mohammed Vs the State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7560 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.4999 of 2021

¶6

Soniya Mehaboob Mohammed

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State represented by The Station House Officer, Yanam Police Station, Puducherry-533 464.

¶10

Dara Subba Raju

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2021, dated 29.01.2021 pending on the file of the Yanam Police Station, Puducherry.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sasindran

¶14

For Respondent R1 : Mr.V.Balamurugane, Public Prosecutor (Pondy)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Petitioner had filed this Petition to quash the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2021 on the file of the Yanam Police Station, Puducherry.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the FIR and a copy of which is annexed along with this Petition. He invited attention of this Court to the ingredients of the offence alleged to commit.

¶18

The learned Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, Puducherry submitted that after registration of the FIR, when the Investigation Officer proceeded with the investigation, he found that there are no sufficient materials to proceed with the investigation and closed the FIR as mistake of fact.

¶19

Recording the submission that the Respondent Police have already closed the FIR as mistake of fact, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS-IX)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

Anu

¶25

¶26

1.The Station House Officer, Yanam Police Station, Puducherry-533 464.

¶27

2.The Public Prosecutor, (Pondicherry) Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.K.Sasindran, Advocate SR. No. 38487

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.7560 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.4999 of 2021

¶30

SKM (CO) PR (14/07/2022)

Soniya Mehaboob Mohammed v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soniya Mehaboob Mohammed 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

Ramesh Vs the State Rep by

Sadagopan Vs the State Repby

S. Dhanabal Vs the State Rep by

Asha Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

P.N.Ragavendhran Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thangamani Ramasamy Vs the State Rep by