Dismissed

Suganthram v. the State Rep by

Madras HC10 May 2023CRL OP/9931/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. Court held FIR could not be quashed immediately. Directed police to investigate fairly within 3 months considering petitioner's evidence disputing his presence at the time of the alleged offence.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction to respondent police to expedite investigation and complete it within 3 months considering documents produced by the petitioner.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9931 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.05.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.9931 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.6541 of 2023

Suganthram

... Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶11

Sathyamurthy

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the connected records made in Crime No.67/2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : M/s.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent :Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Addl. Public Prosecutor [R.1]

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.9931 of 2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petition is to quash the FIR for the alleged offence under

¶20

Sections 399 of IPC and 25(1B) (b) of Arms Act.

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

¶22

allegation against the petitioner is malafide and without any basis. The petitioner is a B.Com, graduate and hails from a humble background. He was arrested by the respondent police on 14.02.2023 at about 2.37 a.m from his house. The learned counsel has also produced the CCTV footages to establish the said fact. Hence, the allegation that the petitioner had participated in an occurrence that took place at 10 a.m. on 14.02.2023 is improbable. Hence, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶23

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the respondent police would consider all the facts and conduct an investigation in a fair manner and file the final report.

¶24

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that the impugned FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of the points

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.9931 of 2023

¶28

raised by the petitioner. However, the respondent police shall conduct the investigation in a fair manner taking into consideration the documents produced by the petitioner and the CCTV footages which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner suggests that the petitioner could not have participated in the alleged occurrence.

¶29

5. With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondent police to expedite the investigation and complete it within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

10.05.2023

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Inspector of Police, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.9931 of 2023

¶37

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶38

shr

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.9931 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.6541 of 2023

¶40

10.05.2023

¶41

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

¶42

4/4

Suganthram v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suganthram 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

V.Lakshmanan Vs B.Suresh Kumar

Sivakumar Vs State Rep.by

M/S Fishermans Fare Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs M.S.Sadaq Ali

Saravanan @ Sachin Vs Inspector of Police

C.Shanthiseelan Vs The Inspector of Police

E.Ramesh Vs Superintendent of Police