Dismissed

T.R.Silambarasan @ Str v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC24 Feb 2022CRL OP/778/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a criminal original petition seeking quashment of an FIR. The court noted that further action in the underlying FIR had been dropped by the First Information Report registrar after a final report, rendering the petition moot and closing it.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was closed as the further action in the underlying FIR had been dropped.

T.R.Silambarasan @ Str Vs the State Rep. by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.02.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.778 of 2016

¶6

T.R.Silambarasan @ STR

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Cyber Crime, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶10

S.A.Ponnusamy The President, Tamilnadu Milk Vendors Welfare Association, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records in the First Information Report in Crime No.519 of 2015 dated 19.12.2015 on the file of the 1^st respondent for the alleged offense under Section 292 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 as against the petitioner and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thiageswaran

¶13

For R1 : Mr. R.Murthi, Government Advocate (Crl Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition is filed to call for the records in the First Information Report in Crime No.519 of 2015 dated 19.12.2015 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶16

2.This F.I.R. was registered under Section 292 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2008. When this matter is taken up today, learned Government Advocate filed the copy of final report and copy of order in R.C.S.No.54 of 2020 dated 20.01.2020 of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai-8. It is submitted that further action in this case is

¶17

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

¶18

dropped, on the basis of final report filed by the first respondent.

¶19

3.The perusal of this order shows that the first respondent filed final report stating that further action is dropped. After sending notice to the defacto complainant and finding that there was no representation for the defacto complainant, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008, accepted the final report and first information report was closed as further action was dropped.

¶20

4.In view of the dropping of further action in Cr.No.519 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent, nothing survives in this Criminal Petition in Crl.O.P.No.778 of 2016. Therefore, Criminal Petition in Crl.O.P.No.778 of 2016 is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

¶27

1.The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Cyber Crime, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶28

2.The Public Prosecutor

¶29

High Court of Madras.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.T.Thiageswaran, Advocate, S.R.No.12920

¶31

CRL.O.P.No.778 of 2016

¶32

SSV(CO) CT 21/03/2022

¶33

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

T.R.Silambarasan @ Str v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R.Silambarasan @ Str v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.V. Vanitha, Age 39 Years, Vs M. Samiyappan

D.V. Vanitha, Age 39 Years, Vs S.L. Vezhavendhan

Natarajan Vs Balammal

A.Thangavelu Vs State Rep by

Dhanasekaran Vs Ranganayaki

P. Manivannan, Age 40 Years, Vs M/S. Arul Construction