Allowed

K.Chandran v. State Rep by

Madras HC24 Jul 2023CRL OP/6244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal complaint. The Court found the petitioner was added as an accused only because he was the property owner, despite having no involvement in the accident. The proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal complaint C.C.No.766 of 2022 was quashed and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.6244 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.6244 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3895 & 3896 of 2023

K.Chandran

...Petitioners

vs.

1.State Rep by, The Sub-Inspector of Police Negamam Police Station, Coimbatore District, (Crime No.327 of 2021)

2.S.Radhamani

...Respondents

PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.766 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Pollachi, Coimbatore District and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate, for R1 No appearance for R2

¶16

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

¶17

Page No.1/5

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.6244 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to C.C.No.766 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Pollachi, Coimbatore District and quash the same.

¶21

The second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent by stating that her husband/Senthil Kumar was doing painting work on daily basis. On 03.07.2023, he was painting in the house belonging to the petitioner (A1). At that time, the Engineer/Suresh Kumar (A2), who was in-charge of the renovation of the house, seems to have sought for help of injured/Senthil Kumar to lift a slab stone. He carried the slab stone in a wooden ladder and at that time the ladder broke, due to which Senthil Kumar fell down and sustained injuries in his leg.

¶22

Based on this complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.327 of 2021 by the first respondent. Initially, the FIR was registered only against the Engineer/Suresh Kumar. At the time of filing of the final report, the petitioner had been added as accused (A1) on the ground that he is the owner of the property. The final report was taken on file by the Court below in C.C.No.766 of

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/5

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.6244 of 2023

¶25

2022 and the same has been put to challenge by the A1 in this petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

On carefully going through of the final report and also the 161 statement, which was recorded from the second respondent as well as injured/Senthil Kumar, it is seen that the petitioner had nothing to do with the entire incident and it was the Engineer/Suresh Kumar, who engaged the service of he injured/Senthil Kumar to lift the slab stone. The petitioner has been added as accused only on the ground that he is the owner of the property, where the renovation work was going on. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings as against the petitioner (A1) will amount to abuse of process of Court and the same requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶28

In the light of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and C.C.No.766 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Pollachi, Coimbatore District is quashed. No cost. Consequently, the connected https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/5

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.6244 of 2023

¶30

miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶31

24.07.2023

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police Negamam Police Station, Coimbatore District, (Crime No.327 of 2021)

¶35

2.The Judicial Magistrate II, Pollachi, Coimbatore District

¶36

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

¶37

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

¶38

Page No.4/5

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.6244 of 2023

¶40

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. nsa

¶41

Crl.O.P No.6244 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3895 & 3896 of 2023

¶42

24.07.2023

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/5

K.Chandran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chandran 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

L.Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

A.N.Ramakrishnan Vs Colonel. N.Venugopal (Retd)

Rajaprakash Vs Inspector of Police

R.Magi Vs Director General of Police

Gandhi Vs State Rep.by

Vishnu Vs the Inspector of Police