Allowed

R.Prasanth v. Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Feb 2024CRL OP/10128/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order deals with a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated for offences of criminal force, assault, obscene acts, and criminal intimidation. The Court found no material to attract IPC provisions or evidence of mala fide intention, leading to an order to quash the proceedings and close connected petitions.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition No.10128 of 2022 is allowed; C.C.No.217 of 2021 is quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

R.Prasanth Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.10128 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.10128 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.Nos.5991 & 5993 of 2022

1.R.Prasanth

2.H.Vengateshwaran

3.R.Prasanth

4.T.Sakthi Amarnath

5.D.Prasanth

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.State rep. By

The Sub-Inspector of Police Yelagiri Police Station, Thiruppathur District. Crime No.90 of 2021

¶18

2.A.Suganesh

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.217 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thiruppathur and quash the same.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Thiruvengadam For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.10128 of 2022

¶24

The petitioners have filed this petition to quash the C.C.No. 217 of

¶25

2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thiruppathur, having been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 294(B), 323, 324 and 506(I) of IPC.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that on 31.07.2021 at 7.00 p.m.

¶27

while the defacto complainant was trying to get money in the Indian Bank ATM at Ponganur Village. The petitioners alleged to have raised voice stating that get the money quickly, when the 2^nd respondent has told them he has to perform one more transaction and there was a wordy quarrel among them, thereby the petitioners assaulted him and abused with filthy language. Hence, the complaint.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged offence made by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to quash the CC against the petitioners.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.10128 of 2022

¶32

respondent submitted that to get money from the Indian Bank ATM, there was a wordy quarrel among the petitioners and the defacto complainant. Due to which the petitioners abused and assaulted the defacto complainant, thereby he sustained injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, complaint was registered in Crime No.90 of 2021, for the offences under Sections 294(B), 323, 324 and 506(I) of IPC and the case has been taken cognizance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thiruppathur.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstance, that there is no prior motive to assault the defacto complainant and there is no material ingredient to attract the provisions under Sections 294(B), 323, 324 and 506(I) of IPC against them, and there is no evidence that the petitioners are indulged in wordy quarrel with a malafide intention to attack the defacto complainant, Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the C.C.No. 217 of 2021 proceeding on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thiruppathur.

¶34

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.10128 of 2022

¶37

rri

¶38

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶39

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

05.02.2024

¶41

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No rri

¶42

¶43

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police Yelagiri Police Station, Thiruppathur District. Crime No.90 of 2021

¶44

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.10128 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5991 & 5993 of 2022

¶46

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

R.Prasanth v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Prasanth v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Jayashree Vs M.Tamilselvan

U.Djegodiche @ Ramakrishnan @ Sathish Vs the Station House Officer

K.Radha Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Arivusudar Vs the State Rep.by

Manager Vs Mohammed Ghouse

Manager Vs Mohammed Ghouse