Allowed

Mohamed Ismail v. State through

Madras HC23 Jul 2024CRL OP/17273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered over a 2020 unauthorised agitation during Covid lockdown, contending he was absent and that no final report was filed within four years despite offences punishable with less than three years. The court held limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. favoured him and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; FIR in Crime No.1833 of 2020 on the file of B-1 North Beach Police Station, Chennai, quashed.

Mohamed Ismail Vs State through — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.17273 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated:23.07.2024

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.17273 of 2024

Mohamed Ismail

.. Petitioner

/versus/

1.State through The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai. (in crime No.1833 of 2020)

¶11

2.Mr.Senguttuvan The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records connect with FIR in Crime No.1833 of 2020 on the file f the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Mohamed Ansar For Respondents :Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Govt.ADvocate (Crl.Side) -----

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.17273 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner herein is before this Court, when sought for issuance of passport, here come to know that the case in Crime No.1833 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 143,269,290 of IPC r/w 41(vi) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888, Section 4A(1b) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement)Act, 1959 and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 & Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 was registered against him.

¶19

On verification, the respondent police found that

¶20

unauthorised agitation held at Chennai on 23.10.2020, the North Beach Police has registered a case against (1)Thada Rahim, President of INL, (2)Abdul Samath ( State Secretary INL), (3)Dhaheer (State Secretary INL), (4)Kambam Ajmal(State Media Wing INL), (5)Mullan Syed Ali, INL and 126 persons and his name has been as shown as Sl.No.104.

¶21

The contention of the petitioner is that he was not present at

¶22

Chennai on the date of incident and he is the resident of Tirunelveli.

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.17273 of 2024

¶26

Being Office bearers of INL his name has been falsely roped. Further, he submitted that the complaint, which has been registered on 23.10.2020 has not been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate till date. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that punishment of all these offences is less than three years. Whereas the final report has not been filed even after

¶27

lapse of four years. Therefore, on the ground of limitation, the First Information Report against the petitioner has to be quashed and allow him to get passport and go abroad to make out his living.

¶28

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that

¶29

the contention of the petitioner is not correct. The members of the unlawful assembly were arrested and their details were recorded by the police before their release. The petitioner along with other, by defraying the prohibitory order, had gathered together without maintaining social distance during Covid epidemic period. They prevented the traffic and public by raising slogan and protested against the Government for not realising Coimbatore bomb blast accused. Since it was the Covid lock down period, the First Information Report was forwarded to the

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.17273 of 2024

¶33

concerned Magistrate through on-line. The investigation is almost completed and final report will be filed soon.

¶34

This Court on considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), not convince on the reason stated for not filing the final report, even after lapse of four years, which enures the benefit of limitation in favour of the petitioner. Hence,this Criminal Original Petition to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.1833 of 2020 is allowed, since the cognizance of the offence is not taken within the time prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

¶35

23.07.2024

¶36

Index:yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order Neutral Citation:yes/no ari To:

¶37

1.The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai. (in crime No.1833 of 2020) 2.Mr.Senguttuvan, The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.17273 of 2024

¶41

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶42

ari

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.17273 of 2024

¶44

23.07.2024

¶45

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

Mohamed Ismail v. State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Ismail v. State through

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

T.Vijayaragavan Vs K.Subramanian

L.P.Rajasekar Vs the District Collector

Rajeev Vs the State Rep by

Kumaravel Vs the Inspector of Police

Viknesh Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Mohan Vs the State Rep by