Dismissed

Sunil Kumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC2 Feb 2023CRL OP/2190/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court held that the First Information Report established cognizable offences against the petitioners and investigation was nearly complete.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; police directed to file final report within one month.

Sunil Kumar Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2190 of 2023 & Crl.MP.No.1228 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.2190 of 2023 and Crl.MP.No.1228 of 2023

¶7

1.Sunil Kumar 2.Lakshmi

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

¶10

1.The State Represented by Inspector of Police, N1, Royapuram Police Station, Chennai-600 013.

¶11

2.Sangeetha

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records in Crime No.1494 of 2021 dated 23.10.2021, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.G.R.Deepak For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.2190 of 2023 & Crl.MP.No.1228 of 2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed to call for the records in Crime No.1494 of 2021

¶20

dated 23.10.2021, on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a property dispute between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/ de-facto complainant. In this regard, a Civil Suit in C.S.No.115 of 2022 is pending on the file of this Court. The allegations made in the complaint are false therefore this petition is filed for quashing the First Information Report.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the investigation in this case is almost completed. The de-facto complainant Sangeetha and her husband Akilesh Bhaskaran suffered injuries in the incident. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶23

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. Reading of the First Information Report shows that there is a dispute between the de-facto complainant's family and accused. It is alleged that on 21.10.2022 at about 9.30 p.m., de-facto complainant, her husband and accused Lakshmi/2^nd petitioner herein were in Kunhiram Stores. At that time, Lakshmi's husband Sunil Kumar/1^st petitioner herein suddenly started

¶24

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

¶25

_________ Page 2 of 5_

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.2190 of 2023 & Crl.MP.No.1228 of 2023

¶27

attacking the de-facto complainant's husband Akilesh Bhaskaran with his hands. Hence the de-facto complainant tried to intervene. Accused Lakshmi had hit the de-facto complainant with a bunch of keys and caused injuries. Both the accused have pushed them, kicked them and hit them. They also made criminal intimidation. On the basis of the complaint, First Information Report in Crime No.1494 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(1) of IPC was registered by the Washermenpet Police Station.

¶28

It is seen from the submission of the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) that both the de-facto complainant and her husband suffered injuries in the incident. The allegations made in the First Information Report and the materials collected so far clearly establishes cognizable offences against the petitioners, which requires investigation of the matter. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) that investigation in this case is almost completed and final report will be filed within a period of one month.

¶29

In the said circumstances, this court finds no merits in the petition for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.1494 of 2021. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected

¶30

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

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.2190 of 2023 & Crl.MP.No.1228 of 2023

¶33

miscellaneous petition is closed. However, the respondent police is directed to file final report within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶34

02.02.2023

¶35

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No mpl

¶36

¶37

1.The State Represented by Inspector of Police,

¶38

N1, Royapuram Police Station, Chennai-600 013.

¶39

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________ Page 4 of 5_

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.2190 of 2023 & Crl.MP.No.1228 of 2023

¶42

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶43

mpl

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.2190 of 2023 and Crl.MP.No.1228 of 2023

¶45

02.02.2023

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________ Page 5 of 5_

Sunil Kumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

V.Narasimhan Vs State of Tamilnadu

N.Manoharan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

S.Dhanasekaran Vs The Superintendent of Police

V.P.Murugesan Vs The Inspector of Police

Dr. B.Ramaswamy Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Rajesh Vs the State Rep by Its