Dismissed

E.Inbaraj v. State Rep by

Madras HC3 Jul 2023CRL OP/2155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that factual contentions do not fall within its jurisdiction to quash proceedings at the investigation stage and directed the police to proceed with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed, and the respondent Police were directed to proceed with the investigation and file a closure report within six weeks.

E.Inbaraj Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 of 4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.2155 of 2022 and Crl.M.P No.946 of 2022

E.Inbaraj

Petitioner

vs.

1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB-II Police Station, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. (Crime No.90 of 2021)

¶11

2.M.Santhi

¶12

Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the FIR in Crime No.90 of 2021 dated 13.09.2021 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath

¶16

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.90

¶19

of 2021 dated 13.09.2021 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

2 of 4

¶21

Heard Mr.M.Gnanasekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf

¶22

of the petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶23

3.The contentions put forward by the learned counsel appearing on

¶24

behalf of the petitioner are purely factual in nature and this Court cannot venture into conducting a mini investigation into the matter and it therefore does not fall within the ambit of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Any finding on facts will also have a bearing on the investigation conducted by the respondent Police.

¶25

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not

¶26

inclined to interfere with the investigation conducted by the respondent Police at this stage.

¶27

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the respondent Police is directed to proceed further with the investigation in accordance with law and complete the investigation and file a final report or a

¶28

closure report, as the case may be, within a period of six weeks from the date of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition

¶31

is closed.

¶32

03.07.2023

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

1.The Inspector of Police, CCB-II Police Station, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶36

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

¶37

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

¶38

4 of 4

¶39

N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.

¶40

ssr

¶41

Crl.OP No.2155 of 2022 and Crl.M.P No.946 of 2022

¶42

03.07.2023

¶43

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

E.Inbaraj v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Inbaraj v. 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

M.Thirumooruthi Vs The Executive Officer

S.Gopal Vs The Joint Commissioner

P.Panneerselvam Vs the Commissioner

Ramadoss Vs the State Rep by

Bhaskar Vs the State Rep by

Bhaskar Vs the State Rep by