Allowed

Mani @ Nandhakumar v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Madras HC2 Jul 2024CRL OP/14173/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR alleging attempt to kidnap the defacto complainant's daughter. The court noted only the allegation of hiding near the house to kidnap and that A1 later married the complainant's daughter; it allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner/A4.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.172 of 2019 quashed against petitioner/A4; connected Crl.M.P. closed.

Mani @ Nandhakumar Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.14173 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.14173 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.8637 of 2024

Mani @ Nandha Kumar

.... Petitioner

Versus

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thoppur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶11

Settu .... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for records in Crime No.172 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the FIR against the petitioner/A4.

¶13

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) - - - - -

¶14

-1-

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.14173 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The case in Crime No.172 of 2019 was registered by the respondent police on 19.06.2019 based on the complaint given by one Settu alleging that this petitioner along with five others had come to his house with an intention to kidnap his daughter. However, they were overcome by the public.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a friend of one Kalaivendhan, who is the first accused in this case. Since Kalaivendhan was in love with the daughter of the complainant, to break the intimacy, a false complaint was lodged. The

¶20

police has not completed the investigation for more than five years. Meanwhile, Kalaivendhan got married to the daughter of the defacto complainant and they are living happily with their children. He would further submit that the complaint is a motivated one, which is filed to harass the petitioner and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit

¶22

-2-

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.14173 of 2024

¶25

that on completion of the investigation, a final report is filed through e-filing a week ago.

¶26

On perusing the complaint and the fact that on the date of the complaint, there is only an allegation of attempt by the petitioner and others, who were hiding themselves near the house of the defaco complainant to kidnap the daughter of the complainant and there is no other over tact attributed to them. Further, taking note of the fact that the first accused got married to the daughter of the defaco complainant subsequently, there is no purpose in subjecting the petitioner herein to the ordeal of criminal trial.

¶27

Hence, this Criminal Original Petition filed to quash the FIR against the petitioner/A4 is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

02.07.2024

¶29

asi

¶30

DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶31

-3-

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.14173 of 2024

¶34

asi

¶35

¶36

The Inspector of Police, Thoppur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶37

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.14173 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.8637 of 2024

¶39

02.07.2024

¶40

-4-

¶41

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

Mani @ Nandhakumar v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani @ Nandhakumar v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

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

J.Sarathkumar Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

I.Vetrivel Vs the Commissioner of Police

S.Shanmugam Vs the Inspector of Police (Crime)

Manokaran Vs the State Rep by

Sowndharya T Vs the Superintendent of Police

Manjula Vs the State Rep.by