Dismissed

Mohammed Yasic v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Mar 2022CRL OP(MD)/544/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash criminal proceedings regarding alleged abuse and obstruction of police officials. The court directed the police to complete investigation and file a final report within six months and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Completion of investigation and filing of final report directed within six months; petition dismissed.

Mohammed Yasic Vs The Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.544 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.03.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.544 of 2022

¶7

Mohammed Yasic ... Petitioner/

¶8

Accused No.1

¶9

(Wrongly mentioned as A.2 in the body of the final report)

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State represented by

¶12

The Inspector of Police,

¶13

Koodal Pudur Police Station,

¶14

Madurai City. (Crime No.283 of 2017) ... 1^st respondent/ Complainant

¶15

Manian ... 2^nd Respondent/

¶16

Defacto Complainant

¶17

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.812 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Madurai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.1

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.812 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Madurai.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the order issued by the Madurai City Corporation Commissioner on 29.03.2017, the defacto complainant and their officials said to have seized some electrical motors which are unofficially fixed and at that time, the petitioner and other accused persons were said to have abused the defacto complainant and prevented them from to do their official work and threatened them with dire consequences and pelted some brick stones. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/2

¶23

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.544 of 2022

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court directs the first respondent police to complete the investigation in C.C.No.812 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶25

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (Crl Side)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

mga

¶30

Note: 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.

¶31

¶32

The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.

¶33

Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, Madurai City.

¶34

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶35

Crl.O.P(MD)No.544 of 2022 01.03.2022

¶36

MGJ(21.03.2022) 2P 4C

¶37

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

¶38

2/2

Mohammed Yasic v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Yasic 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

Karunanidhi Vs The District Superintendent of police

Muthaiah Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

R. Lakshan Vs The Superintendent of police

Kamaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Venkadeshwaran Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Manickam.S.P Vs the District Collector