Dismissed

K.Ramesh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Oct 2024CRL OP/18443/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC alleging a false case and no specific allegations against him. The court declined to interfere at the initial stage of investigation, dismissed the petition, extended interim protection by one month, and permitted him to challenge any final report or seek bail.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted on 21.02.2024 extended for one month from receipt of copy of order; liberty to seek bail and to challenge any final report.

K.Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.18443 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATE : 21.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.18443 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.12178 of 2022

K.Ramesh

... Petitioner/A2

Versus

1.The Inspector of Police, Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.

¶13

2.S.Tamilselvi

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R. in Crime No.90/2022 dated 16.07.2022, on the file of Inspector of Police, Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Balavijayan

¶17

For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.S.Mohandoss

¶18

Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) Assisted by Ms.N.Dhanalatchumy For Respondent-2 : No appearance

¶19

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

¶20

1/6

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.18443 of 2022

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime

¶24

No.90 of 2022 dated 16.07.2022, on the file of Inspector of Police,

¶25

Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.

¶26

2.The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the

¶27

respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner for offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 of I.P.C. r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. based on the false complaint given by the de-facto complainant. Already the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) to the credit of Crime No.90 of 2022 as per the directions of this Court. There is no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, even as per the F.I.R. no case is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed

¶28

to quash the F.I.R. pending against the petitioner.

¶29

3.The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the

¶30

first respondent police submitted that already the respondent police issued

¶31

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

¶32

2/6

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.18443 of 2022

¶34

notice to the petitioner under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not appeared before the respondent police and there are specific allegations as

¶35

against this petitioner. Investigation in this case is at the initial stage.

¶36

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶37

Considering the representation made by both sides and also

¶38

considering the fact that the case is now at the initial stage of investigation, it

¶39

is for the respondent police to conduct fair investigation and to file final report based on the materials. If any positive final report is filed as against

¶40

this petitioner, he is at liberty to challenge the said final report in accordance

¶41

with law. Since he deposited a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- before the Court to the credit of Crime No.90 of 2022 based on the order of this Court, he is at

¶42

liberty to approach this Court after filing of final report by the 1st respondent police.

¶43

This Court, on 21.02.2024, had granted interim protection to the

¶44

petitioner. Therefore, the interim protection already granted by this Court is

¶45

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

¶46

3/6

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.18443 of 2022

¶48

extended for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court for bail in accordance with law, if it is necessary.

¶49

With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶50

dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶51

21.10.2024

¶52

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order rsi

¶53

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

¶54

4/6

¶55

Crl.O.P.No.18443 of 2022

¶56

¶57

1.The Inspector of Police, Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.

¶58

2 .The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶59

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

¶60

5/6

¶61

Crl.O.P.No.18443 of 2022

¶62

P.DHANABAL, J. rsi

¶63

Crl.O.P.No.18443 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12178 of 2022

¶64

21.10.2024

¶65

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

¶66

6/6

K.Ramesh v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramesh v. the 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

Neelakandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sakkararaja Alamelu Mangai Vs the State Rep by

A.Surya Prakash Vs the State Rep by

Duraimani Vs State Rep by

F.Gunapandian Vs Deputy Director

Saroja Vs the State Rep by