Dismissed

Ashok Kumar v. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Jun 2023CRL OP/1396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed an Original Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under IPC 1860. The petitioner claimed false implication in a family dispute, but the court found sufficient evidence of injuries and eyewitness statements establishing the crime, thus denying quashing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for quashing the C.C. No.923 of 2022 is dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Ashok Kumar Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1396 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1396 of 2023 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.800 and 801 of 2023

¶8

Ashok Kumar

¶9

... Petitioner vs

¶10

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem city, Salem. (Crime No.84 of 2022)

¶11

2.Nandhakumar ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pending trial in C.C.No.923 of 2022, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner ... Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For R-1 ... Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl side) For R-2 ... Mr.K,Muthu

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.1396 of 2023

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pending trial in C.C.No.923 of 2022, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem and quash the same.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an

¶19

accused in C.C.No.923 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. Petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. Defacto complainant and petitioner are brothers. In a family dispute, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant gave a false complaint and therefore, this petition.

¶20

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) opposes this petition, on the ground that, 2nd respondent suffered injuries and this case requires trial. Therefore, he prays for the dismissal of this petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that, 2nd

¶22

respondent suffered the following injuries in the incident,

¶23

(i)Abrasion 2x1 cm over lower eyebrow medial portion.

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.1396 of 2023

¶27

(ii)Abrasion over right arm 3x1 cm.

¶28

(iii)Abrasion of 1x1 cm in upper lip.

¶29

In support of his submissions, he produced copy of treatment records given by Government Mohankumaramagalam Medical College & Hospital, Salem and also photographs of 2nd respondent showing the injuries suffered by him.

¶30

Considered the submissions and perused the records.

¶31

The first information report shows that, 2nd respondent/defacto

¶32

complainant was living in the first floor, and along with his brother in the ground floor, in the address given in the complaint. He is an Advocate. On 26.03.2022, at about 10.15 p.m., there was a power cut in his house. He

¶33

came out of his house and saw his brother Ashok Kumar standing with a cutting plier. Defacto complainant found that, his brother cut the wire in the meter box. He asked him why he cut the wire, for which, accused responded saying that, he would do like that and started hitting him with cutting plier on his face and shoulder. As a result, defacto complainant

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.1396 of 2023

¶37

suffered injuries.

¶38

6.1. On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, first information report in Crime No.84 of 2022 was registered. After investigation, final report was also filed for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC. Supporting the first information report allegations, defacto complainant had given his statement. The statement of the defacto complainant is supported by eye witnesses Reka Rani, Lavanya, Prabu and Dr.Viswanathan. The reading of the statement and perusal of the discharge summary and photographs clearly establishes the fact that, 2nd respondent suffered injuries in the incident. It is stated that, in the course of incident, petitioner abused him in filthy language and made criminal intimidation. Thus, this Court finds that, there are materials available for framing charges against the petitioner, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, there is no valid grounds for considering in the prayer seeking for quashment of the final report in C.C.No.923 of 2022.

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.1396 of 2023

¶42

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶43

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶44

26.06.2023

¶45

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order

¶46

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Crl.O.P.No.1396 of 2023

¶50

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶51

¶52

¶53

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem

¶54

2.The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem city, Salem.

¶55

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶56

Crl.O.P.No.1396 of 2023

¶57

26.06.2023

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ashok Kumar v. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. the State Rep by 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

M/S.Sri Sathya Sai Mandali Trust Vs M/S.Flash Builders Pvt. Ltd.

A.Y.Bhavani Vs Inspector of Police (Law and Order)

M.Kannan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Venkatesan Vs State Rep by

Muthu Vs the State Rep by Its

Murali Vs the State Rep.by