Dismissed

M.Selvam v. the State Rep by

Madras HC17 Aug 2023CRL OP/18110/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of criminal proceedings. The Court held that reasoning applied in a previous dismissed petition regarding suppression of a property sale and creation of a fresh power of attorney equally applies to the current petitioners, requiring defence to be established before the Trial Court. Petition dismiss

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashment of C.C.No.260 of 2020 dismissed.

M.Selvam Vs the State Rep by — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 of 4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.18110 of 2023

¶7

1.M.Selvam (M/49 Y) S/o.Murugaesan 2.M.Palayam (M/45 y) S/o.Murugaesan .. Petitioners / 2 & 3Accused .Vs. 1.The State rep.by Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Kancheepuram. .. Respondent/Complainant 2.Mr.krishnamoorthy S/o.Perumal .. Respondent/De facto Complainant

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the CC.No.260 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mrs.C.Shankary for M/s.Nathan and Associates For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1

¶10

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

¶11

2 of 4

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.260 of 2020, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.

¶14

2.Already A1 had filed a quash petition before this Court in Crl.OP.No.20161 of 2022 and the same was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 26.08.2022. A1 is the power of attorney agent in whose favour the power was executed by A2 to A6. The petitioners are A2 and A3. This Court held that a property which was already sold by the father was suppressed and a fresh power of attorney was created in favour of A1. Accordingly, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the proceedings. The same reasoning will equally apply to the petitioners also. Hence, whatever is the defence taken should be established only before the Trial Court.

¶15

3.In view of the above, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

¶16

17.08.2023

¶17

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order KP

¶18

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

¶19

3 of 4

¶20

¶21

1.Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Kancheepuram.

¶22

2.Judicial Magistrate Chengalpattu.

¶23

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶24

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

¶25

4 of 4

¶26

N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.

¶27

¶28

Crl.O.P No.18110 of 2023

¶29

17.08.2023

¶30

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

M.Selvam v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Selvam 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

C.Kailasam @ Kandhasamy Vs State Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sumathi Vs Inspector of Police

K.Karthick Kumar Vs Inspector of Police

Sathishkumar @ Naveen Vs Inspector of Police

Suseela Vs Chandran

V.Thirupathi Vs the State Rep by Its