Dismissed

M.Jaya v. State Rep by

Madras HC11 Oct 2023CRL OP/5064/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners filed criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR arising from a property dispute between brothers. The court noted the contention that the complainant relinquished his share via a deed and subsequently lodged a false complaint. The court disposed of the petitions without a detailed hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions are disposed of; the FIR remains to be investigated by the police.

M.Jaya Vs State Rep by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P. Nos.5064 and 6919 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 11.10.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P. Nos.5064 and 6919 of 2022 and

¶7

Crl.M.P. Nos.2724 and 3923 of 2022

¶8

Mrs.Jaya

¶9

... Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.5064 of 2022

¶10

Mr.M.Vishal

¶11

... Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.6919 of 2022

¶12

-vs-

¶13

1.State Represented by The Inspector of Police, H.8, Thiruvotriyur Police Station, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai – 600 019.

¶14

2.M.Suresh

¶15

...Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶16

COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records FIR in Crime Nos.169 of 2022, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent, the Inspector of Police Station (Crime) Thiruvotriyur Police Station, Chennai.

¶17

Page No.1/4

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P. Nos.5064 and 6919 of 2022

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Lakshmipathi For R1 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶21

COMMON ORDER

¶22

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the dispute is between brothers regarding the property in which the defacto complainant and the accused have share. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the defacto complainant already relinquished his right in the property and executed a deed. Now by suppressing the fact, he has given a complaint as if he was cheated by his brother. The property has been now transferred in the name of his brother's son.

¶23

A specific averment in the FIR regarding dishonest representation of the defacto complainant while executing the deed of the year 2018 has been alleged. It is for the Investigating Officer to verify whether the said allegation is true or after three years of the execution of the deed, the defacto complainant is trying to take advantage of his acts. After thorough investigation, if any cognizable offence is made out, the Investigation Officer shall proceed or else close the complaint and report.

¶24

Page No.2/4

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P. Nos.5064 and 6919 of 2022

¶27

These Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of. Connected

¶28

Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶29

11.10.2023

¶30

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rkp

¶31

¶32

1.The Inspector of Police, H.8, Thiruvotriyur Police Station, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai – 600 019.

¶33

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

¶34

Page No.3/4

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P. Nos.5064 and 6919 of 2022

¶37

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶38

rkp

¶39

Crl.O.P. Nos.5064 and 6919 of 2022 and Crl.M.P. Nos.2724 and 3923 of 2022

(2/2)

11.10.2023

Page No.4/4

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

M.Jaya v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jaya 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

Mubarak Alikhan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Pavithran Vs Inspector of Police

D.Solomon Selvaraj Vs State Rep.by Its

R.Santhi Pitchaiya Nattar Vs the Home Secretary

N.Maheswari Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Vishal Vs State Rep by