Dismissed

Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai v. State Rep. by Its

Madras HC10 Jul 2023CRL OP/2229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR. It held it could not conduct a mini investigation into factual contentions. The investigation was directed to continue, closing connected miscellaneous petitions. Thin order, no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Police directed to complete investigation and file final/closure report within six weeks.

Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai Vs State Rep. by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 of 4

¶2

[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.2229 of 2022

¶7

Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.State By: The Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Taluk Police Station, Thiruvallur – 602 001. (Crime No.631 of 2021)

¶10

2.J.Shankar Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.631 of 2021 dated 19.12.2021 pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Felix For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.631 of 2021 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

¶15

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

¶16

2 of 4

¶17

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional

¶18

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶19

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

¶20

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the entire investigation has been completed and the Investigation Officer is only awaiting for the lab report and on receipt of the same, final report will be filed in this case.

¶21

5.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation conducted by the respondent Police at this stage.

¶22

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

¶23

3 of 4

¶24

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 closure report, as the case may be, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

10.07.2023

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Taluk Police Station, Thiruvallur – 602 001.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

4 of 4

¶32

N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.

¶33

ssr

¶34

Crl.O.P No.2229 of 2022

¶35

10.07.2023

¶36

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

Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai v. State Rep. by Its

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

Gokulnath Vs the State Rep.by Its

Logesh Vs the Inspector of Police

Gerald Kinsley Vs Mary Suji

V.Manoharan Vs State Rep by

K.C.Koushik Vs State Rep by

G.Boopathi Vs State Rep by