Allowed

Kavitha v. State Rep. by

Madras HC6 Jul 2023CRL OP/2913/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special leave to quash petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Madras High Court held that since the main accuser had compromised the dispute leading to the quashing of proceedings against him, continuing the case against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of the court's process. The proceedings were accordingly quashed.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2020 are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

Kavitha Vs State Rep. by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P No.2913 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.2913 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.1926 of 2019

¶7

Kavitha ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State rep by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-1, Team-II, Vepery, Chennai-7. ... Respondent /Complainant

¶10

Cheran Enterprises Private Limited represented by its power of attorney Mr.Ravichandran

¶11

.. Respondent / Defacto-Complainant

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.1972 of 2014 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB & CBCID Cases at Allikulam, Chennai and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Anandaraj

¶14

For R1 : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

Crl.O.P No.2913 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1972

¶20

of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB

¶21

& CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for Trial of Cases related to

¶22

Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamilnadu, and re-numbered as C.C.No.20 of 2020.

¶23

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is brought to the

¶24

notice of this Court that A1 and A5 had compromised the dispute with the

¶25

second respondent and based on the same, the proceedings in C.C.No.1972 of 2014 was quashed.

¶26

It is only as against A1, the main allegations were made in the final

¶27

report. If A1 has compromised the dispute with second respondent and the proceedings have been quashed with respect to A1, there is no reason to continue the proceedings as against the petitioner who has been arrayed as

¶28

A4. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, she had studied in the Nursing

¶29

Course under the sponsorship offered by A1 and the petitioner had also acted

¶30

as a Lecturer. The financial support was given by A1, and the amount was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

also deducted from the salary of the petitioner when she was serving as the

¶32

2/4

¶33

Crl.O.P No.2913 of 2019

¶34

Lecturer during the period 2001-2005, the petitioner has been made as an

¶35

accused only on the ground that her name has been found to be one of the

¶36

Director of Cheran Properties Limited and Vasanta Mills Limited. Except this,

¶37

no specific overt-act has been attributed against the petitioner.

¶38

In the light of the above discussion, the continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner will amount to an abuse of process of Court which requires the interference of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for Trial of Cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamilnadu, is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶39

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,

¶40

the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶41

06.07.2023

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

3/4

¶45

Crl.O.P No.2913 of 2019

¶46

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. mpa

¶47

¶48

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-1, Team-II, Vepery, Chennai-7.

¶49

The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

¶50

Crl.O.P No.2913 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.1926 of 2019

¶51

06.07.2023

¶52

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

¶53

4/4

Kavitha v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavitha 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/s.Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Superintendent of POlice

Thamizh @ Thamizhazhagan Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Senthilnathan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Krishnanpillai, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.R.Vijayabhaskar Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.K.Rayar Vs the Dr.K.Ponmudi Ex M.L.A