Allowed

M. Nagajothi v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Mar 2022CRL OP(MD)/1611/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, who was not directly alleged to have committed the offence, while directing the police to complete investigation against the first accused within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

The FIR was quashed against the petitioner. The police are directed to complete investigation against the first accused and file the final report within twelve weeks.

M. Nagajothi Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1611 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.03.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1611 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.1156 of 2022

¶4

M.Nagajothi

¶5

... Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.State through, The Inspector of Police, Keerathurai Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.628 of 2019). ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant 2.M.Surya Moorthi ... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto complainant

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned F.I.R in Crime No.628 of 2019, dated 09.07.2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same insofar Accused No.2 is concerned.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivasan For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R – 2 : No appearance

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.628 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent.

¶12

2.The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that he is running a share auto and his family members were growing cows and the petitioner herein is also growing cows for her livelihood. While being so, 10 days prior to the date of occurrence, the petitioner's cow attacked the defacto complainant's mother's cow, due to that, the above said cow yielded the calf in deceased stage. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, there was a quarrel arose between the petitioner and his mother. On 08.07.2019, the petitioner's son, who is arraigned as Accused No.1, smashed the defacto complainant's auto and his brother-in-laws autos, in which, the wind screens of the above said autos were damaged. When it was questioned, the petitioner's son abused the defacto complainant's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1/3

¶14

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1611 of 2022

¶15

mother and kicked the defacto complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the first respondent registered a case and the petitioner and another in Crime No.628 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

Though the name of the second respondent has been printed in the cause-list, none appeared for the second respondent either in person or through counsel.

¶18

Even according to the case of the second respondent, the first accused only attacked the autos and kicked the defacto complainant's mother by using weapon rod and thereby caused injuries. Asfar as the petitioner is concerned, she is the mother of the first accused and there is absolutely no overt act and no allegations as against the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the above, the FIR cannot be sustained as against the petitioner, since no offence is made out as against the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.628 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent is quashed as against the petitioner and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report as against the first accused before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

¶24

Note :

¶25

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1611 of 2022

¶29

¶30

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, Keerathurai Police Station, Madurai District.

¶32

3.The Inspector of Police, Swamimalai Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.R.SRINIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-12634[F] dated 17/03/2022 ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.1611 of 2022 15.03.2022

¶34

MGJ(25.03.2022) 3P 5C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

M. Nagajothi v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Nagajothi v. The Inspector of Police

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

S.Manikandan Vs The Inspector of Police

Chinnathai Vs The Superintendent of Police

Gopi Vs The Inspector of Police

Subadha Vs The Inspector of Police

S. Chandru Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

John Britto Vs The Inspector of Police