A Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR for damage to property and assault was dismissed. The court held that allegations in the FIR demonstrated a cognizable offence, negating any merit for quashing despite pending investigation.
Petition to quash FIR in Crime No.384 of 2022 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P..No.3675 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
Crl.O.P.No.3675 of 2023
... Petitioners
Vs.
Crime No.384 of 2022.
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pursuant to the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.384 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K2 Ayyanavaram Police Station, Kilpauk, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Naresh For R1 : Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.N.Naresh for Mr.M.Kabilan
Crl.O.P..No.3675 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to to call for the records
pursuant to the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.384 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K2 Ayyanavaram Police Station, Kilpauk, Chennai and quash the same.
representing Mr.M.Kabilan, learned counsel for the petitioner prays adjournment.
3. However, this Court finds from the previous orders passed that, this case was adjourned from the date of admission on 20.02.2023 at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent during the last hearing submitted that, he was ready for the hearing and the matter was posted today as last chance for disposal. Today also the learned counsel for the petitioner is not ready. Therefore, this Court proceeded to dispose the petition on the basis of the materials available and the submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent submitted that, during the
Crl.O.P..No.3675 of 2023
incident, petitioner had damaged the entire petty shop belong to the 2 nd respondent and also caused injuries to the 2 nd respondent. Thus, he strongly opposes this petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that, investigation in this case is still pending and final report will be filed soon.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records. It is seen from the FIR allegations that, on 03.10.2022, at about 02.30.p.m., one Sathish along with 4 others came to the defacto complainant's petty shop and asked for a cigarette. Defacto complainant had just come to the shop after finishing his lunch and asked Sathish to wait for 5 minutes. For which, Sathish scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language for asking him to wait. Again at about 04.30.p.m., Sathish along with four other persons came to the defacto complainant's shop and started attacking the defacto complainant with his hands and legs. Not only that, they also damaged the articles kept in the shop and also made criminal intimidation. On the basis of the complaint given by
the defacto complainant, FIR in Crime No.384 of 2022 was registered.
Crl.O.P..No.3675 of 2023
7. The FIR allegations make out commission of cognizable offence by
the petitioner and others. Therefore, this Court finds no merits to quash the
FIR in Crime No.384 of 2022 as against the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
14.06.2023
Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Sma
To:
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
Crl.O.P..No.3675 of 2023
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J. sma
Crl.O.P. No.3675 of 2023
14.06.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR alleging damage to property and assault should be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of court.
Whether the pendency of investigation precludes the High Court from quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Sathish Kumar & Ors.
Inspector of Police, K2 Ayyanavaram Police Station
Radha Krishnan
G.Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
