Allowed

Subramanian v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/6928/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court heard a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of FIR proceedings. Relying on similarity of facts to prior judgments, the court ordered the quashing of the proceedings insofar as the petitioners were concerned and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.107/2020 were quashed insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.18, 33 and 53 are concerned.

Subramanian Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.04.2022

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6928 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4782 of 2022

¶5

1.Subramanian

¶6

2.Gubendran 3.Pathmanaban

¶7

...Petitioners/Accused 18,33 & 53

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station Madurai City (Crime No.107/2020) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.C.Panaraj ... 2nd Respondents / Defacto complainant

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first information report in Crime No.107/2020 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same in respect of the petitioners/accused Nos.18, 33 and 53.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Maxson Lobo

¶12

For R-1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.107/2020 on the file of the first respondent police.

¶15

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the facts of the case are exactly similar to the case covered in the decision reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District] dated 20.09.2018 and in the case of Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and other in batch of cases in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶20

first respondent would submit that the facts of the case are similar to the facts covered under the Judgment referred above.

¶21

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

¶22

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

¶23

5. Perused the materials on record

¶24

6.The facts of this case is similar to the facts covered by the Judgment of this Court reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District] dated 20.09.2018 and in case of Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and other in batch of cases in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019. Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No.107/2020 on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners alone and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CRL SIDE)

¶26

lr To

¶27