Allowed

S.Nagarajan v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC21 Oct 2024CRL OP/20884/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court held that since the offences were cognizable and bailable with a maximum imprisonment period of less than one year, the limitation for taking cognizance under Section 468 Cr.P.C. was one year from the FIR date. As cognizance was not taken within this period, the FIR was quashed.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. No.10 of 2023 pending on the file of the respondent/Police is quashed.

S.Nagarajan Vs the State Rep by Its — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20884 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No. 20884 of 2024

¶7

S.Nagaraj		... Petitioner
	Vs.
Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station,
Karaikal,
Pondicherry Union Territory,
Crime No.10 of 2023.		... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in F.I.R.No.10 of 2023 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Karaikal and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Mohan Dass Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) Assisted by Ms.N.Dhanalatchoumi

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner herein is one of the accused in Crime No.10 of 2023

¶12

on the file of the respondent/Police for the offences under Sections 7 and

¶13

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

¶14

1/5

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.20884 of 2024

¶16

8 of Pondicherry Gaming Act, 1965. The offences and penalties prescribed are as below :

¶17

''7. Penalty for opening etc., a common gaming – house . - Whoever opens, keeps or uses or permits to be used any common gaming-house, or conducts or assists in conducting the business of any common gaminghouse or advances or furnishes money for gaming therein, shall be punishable with fine which may extend for five hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with both.

¶18

8. Penalty for being found gaming in a common gaming-house. - Whoever is found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming-house shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month; and any person found in any common gaming-house during any gaming or playing therein shall be presumed, until the contrary be proved, to have been there for the purpose of gaming.''

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since punishment is

¶20

only the maximum period of imprisonment for a term extending to three

¶21

months, as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the cognizance of the offences ought

¶22

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

¶23

2/5

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.20884 of 2024

¶25

to have been taken within a period of one year from the date of the FIR, whereas, in this case, the final report is not filed till date and therefore, the cognizance cannot be taken, in view of the limitation prescribed under the Statute.

¶26

3. Learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry appearing for the respondent states that on 21.01.2023, the respondent/Police has conducted raid on the Indoor Sports Members Recreation Club, Karaikal and found that the premises is used for gambling purpose using playing cards and therefore, the Club Secretary and its members and other persons, who were present there and playing cards, were arrested and incriminating materials along with cash of Rs.7,700/- were seized. After completion of investigation, final report was prepared on 27.01.2023 and presented before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karaikal and the same was not taken on file, since the case properties were not produced along with the final report. On 18.09.2024, on production of case properties, final report was re-presented through e-filing, vide Acknowledgment No.LTN20230003195 C202400147, dated 21.09.2024.

¶27

4. From the information furnished by the learned Public

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.20884 of 2024

¶31

Prosecutor, it is affirmed that till date, the cognizance of the offences

¶32

against this petitioner, is not yet taken. As per Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C., the time prescribed for taking cognizance of the offence punishable with imprisonment of less than one year, is only one year from the date of the filing of the FIR. Therefore, the complaint is liable to

¶33

be quashed.

¶34

5. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed

¶35

and the F.I.R. No.10 of 2023 pending on the file of the respondent/Police

is quashed.

21.10.2024

Index: Yes/No

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ms

¶40

¶41

The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Karaikal,Pondicherry Union Territory,

¶42

The Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry.

¶43

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

4/5

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.20884 of 2024

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.20884 of 2024

¶49

21.10.2024

¶50

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

S.Nagarajan v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nagarajan v. the State Rep by Its

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

S.Vignesh Selvaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Palani Ex.Army Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sathish Vs the State Represented by

M.Sivasankar Vs G.Abirami

Rajamani Vs the Joint Director and Head of the Zone

V.Kanagaraj Kumar Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by