Dismissed

Kabilesh v. the State Rep by

Madras HC21 Jun 2023CRL OP/16425/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of a final report under Section 482 CrPC in a rash and negligent driving case. The Court held that admissibility of evidence is for the trial court. Petition dismissed; appearance dispensed with unless trial court deems it necessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash final report dismissed; appearance dispensed with unless trial Court considers it necessary.

Kabilesh Vs the State Rep by — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.16425 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.16425 of 2021

Mr.Kabilesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing (East), Coimbatore.

¶11

Mrs.Yashodha ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.967 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore and quash the proceedings initiated under Final Report dated 05.04.2019 FR-219/2019.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Parthasarathy For Respondents : For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.16425 of 2021

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petition is to quash the final report against the petitioner for

¶18

the alleged offences under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The allegation is that the petitioner rode a two wheeler in a

¶20

rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the husband of the defacto complainant.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the

¶22

witnesses are hearsay witnesses; that even the defacto complainant was not an eye-witness and her statement cannot be accepted. Since there is no legally admissible evidence, it will be a futile exercise to ask the petitioner to undergo trial. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the final report.

¶23

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra submitted that

¶24

the matter has to be adjudicated only before the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.16425 of 2021

¶27

5. This Court is of the view that the points raised by the petitioner have

¶28

to be adjudicated only before the Trial Court. The question as to whether the de facto complainant is statement is admissible or not, is to be considered by the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned final report. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the Trial Court and it is needless to state that the trial Court shall consider the same on merits. The appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with unless the trial Court considers the petitioner's appearance necessary for the progress of the trial.

¶29

6. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶30

dismissed.

¶31

21.06.2023

¶32

Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No rgm

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.16425 of 2021

SUNDER MOHAN, J

rgm

The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing (East), Coimbatore.

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.16425 of 2021

¶40

21.06.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Kabilesh v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabilesh v. the State Rep by

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

B.S.Hari Vs N.Murugan

S.Jaisankar Vs v.Chokkalingam

A.Mohan Kumar Vs N.Murugan

Dinesh Kumar Vs the State Rep.by

G.Thangavel Vs M.Senthilkumar

Karthik Vs the State Rep by