Dismissed

Sayed Kadar v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC2 Jun 2023CRL OP/6729/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for IPC offences. The court held it was not inclined to entertain the petition as the trial had commenced, permitting parties to raise submissions before the Trial Court instead. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The quash petition is dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sayed Kadar Vs the State Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.6729 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P. No.6729 of 2021 & Crl. M.P.Nos.4471 & 4472 of 2021

¶6

1.Sayed Kadar 2.Nasira Bi 3.Shamshath Kasim 4.Rasiyabee ... Petitioners Vs.

¶7

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pakandairoadu Police Station, Viluppuram District.

¶8

2.Asha ... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

1/4

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.6729 of 2021

¶12

PRAYER:

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.125 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Sankarapuram, Villupuram District and to quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr. C.Prabakaran

¶15

For Respondent 1 : Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

For Respondent 2 : Mr. K.Selvaraj

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petition is to quash the final report filed for the offences

¶19

under Section 294 (b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of the Woman Harassment Act.

¶20

It is reported by the learned counsel for the defacto

¶21

complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.6729 of 2021

¶25

Trial has commenced. Since the Trial has commenced, this Court is

¶26

not inclined to entertain this petition. However, the petitioners are at

¶27

liberty to raise all their submissions made in the quash petition before

¶28

the Trial Court.

¶29

With the above observation, the quash petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶30

02.06.2023

¶31

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No

¶32

kan

¶33

¶34

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court at Sankarapuram, Villupuram District.

¶35

2.The Inspector of Police, Pakandairoadu Police Station, Viluppuram District.

¶36

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

¶37

3/4

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.6729 of 2021

¶39

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶40

kan

¶41

Crl.O.P.No. 6729 of 2021

¶42

02.06.2023

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

Sayed Kadar v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Kadar v. the 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

R.Sailendra Vs State Rep by

T.Muthuraj Vs the Asst.Commissioner of Police

O.Vignesh Vs the State Rep by

M.Sathishbabu Vs P.Poornima

Omana S Nair Vs State Rep.by

M.Sukumaran Vs the Superintendent of Police