The High Court disposed of a criminal original petition filed for anticipatory bail. Ruling that the FIR was closed by the Magistrate on limitation grounds, causing the petitioners to cease being accused, held the petition unnecessary.
No anticipatory bail order; petition dismissed due to closure of underlying criminal case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.OP.No.2510 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.2510 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
The order in Crl.OP.No.952 of 2024 dated 19.02.2024 filed by
Parvathy Ammal and Ruby Ammal in Cr.No. 2333 of 2014 have been placed before this Court.
2333 of 2014 which had been registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
follows:
“ In the light of the above status report, it is seen that investigation
was completed and final report was also filed before the Court below
and the Court below closed the case on 09.02.2024 on the ground
that the period of limitation has already come to an end. The Court
below was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 473
Cr.P.C.
Recording the above, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
1/4
Crl.OP.No.2510 of 2024
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed”.
Vv
05.03.2024
2/4
Crl.OP.No.2510 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Vv
Crl.O.P.No.2510 of 2024
3/4
Crl.OP.No.2510 of 2024
05.03.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail petition requires adjudication when the underlying FIR has been closed by the Magistrate due to limitation.
Parvathy Ammal
Ruby Ammal
State of Tamil Nadu
C.V. Karthikeyan
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
