Dismissed

M.Sankar v. State by Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Jun 2023CRL OP/8850/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings via Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., alleging false FIR registration despite his claim of being injured by the respondent. Court rejected this, perceiving the FIR allegations and record evidence as sufficient to establish a cognizable offense, thereby dismissing the petition and closing connected petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Criminal Original Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M.Sankar Vs State by Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P..No.8850 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:27.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.8850 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.5683 & 5685 of 2023

M.Sankar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State by Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Crime No.198 of 2021.

¶13

Venkatesh ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.C.No.608 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sivashanmugam For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶17

Crl.O.P..No.8850 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.608 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District and quash the same.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there is a case

¶21

in Counter in Crime No.503 of 2022 registered against the 2^nd respondent and two others for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. It was the 2^nd respondent and his family members, who had attacked the petitioner. Petitioner had suffered extensive injuries and he was treated in hospital. However, on the basis of the false complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, FIR in Crime No.198 of 2021 was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC. After investigation, respondent police filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.I, Krishnagiri in C.C.No.608 of 2022. In the said circumstances, petitioner filed this petition for quashing the C.C.No.608 of 2022.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶23

Crl.O.P..No.8850 of 2023

¶24

In response, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted

¶25

that, in a fight between two parties, petitioner as well as one venkatesh (2^nd respondent herein) had suffered injuries. Both the cases had been investigated and final report is filed. In support of the injuries suffered by the 2^nd respondent Venkatesh, copy of the accident register is also filed.

¶26

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. FIR

¶27

allegations in Crime No.198 of 2021 shows that, at about 07.30.a.m., on 03.06.2021, petitioner had scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language. When the 2^nd respondent, questioned as to why he was scolding him, petitioner had attacked the 2^nd respondent with iron rod. Petitioner also made criminal intimidation to cause death of the 2^nd respondent. Reiterating the allegations made in the FIR, 2^nd respondent had given statement. The statement was supported by eye witness Parvathy, Sathya, Indhra, Sadhaby and also Thirumoorthy. The copy of the accident register also shows that, 2^nd respondent had suffered grievous injuries in the incident. Therefore, this Court finds from the records produced commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner is made out for framing charges and for proceeding with the trial. Therefore, quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.608 of 2022 cannot be entertained.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶29

Crl.O.P..No.8850 of 2023

¶30

¶31

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶32

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

27.06.2023

¶34

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Sma

¶35

To:

¶36

1.Judicial Magistrate -I, Krishnagiri.

¶37

Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶38

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶40

Crl.O.P..No.8850 of 2023

¶41

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶42

sma

¶43

Crl.O.P. No.8850 of 2023

¶44

27.06.2023

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

M.Sankar v. State by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sankar v. State by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesan Vs State Rep by

Ashok Kumar Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Muthu Vs the State Rep by Its

L.Narayanan Vs State Rep by

R.Meenakshi Sundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

Mani Vs State Rep. by Its