Allowed

A.Pasupathy v. State Rep by

Madras HC6 Feb 2024CRL OP/3178/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash charge sheet against A3 for forgery offences arising from a family dispute over Narasu's Coffee company. The court noted the dispute was amicably settled, premises handed over, and proceedings against A2 already quashed; it quashed the charge sheet against the petitioner and closed connected petitions.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet in C.C.No.163 of 2021 against the petitioner (A3) quashed; connected Crl.M.Ps closed.

A.Pasupathy Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3178 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.3178 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1437 & 1438 of 2022

A.Pasupathy

... Petitioner

Versus

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem City, Salem-636 001. (Crime No.24 of 2013)

¶11

P.Sivanandan

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for entire records relating to C.C.No.163 of 2021 from the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem and quash the same as against the petitioner arrayed as 3^rd accused therein.

¶14

Page No.1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.3178 of 2022

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr. I.Arokiasamy for R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 163 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

Totally, there are six accused involved in the crime. The

¶22

petitioner is ranked as A3 and against him as well as other 5 accused, the F.I.R. in Crime No.24 of 2013 was registered for the offence under

¶23

Sec.120B, 465, 471, 193, 196 and 109 of I.P.C. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.163 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem and the same is pending. Now, the petitioner had filed this petition praying to quash the

¶24

said charge sheet stating that he has been falsely implicated in this case

¶25

Page No.2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

by the 1

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.3178 of 2022

¶29

by the 1^st respondent police as per the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant. In fact, due to the misunderstanding with the 2^nd respondent and his father/A1, there was a family dispute in the erstwhile partnership firm of Narasu's Coffee company, thereby a civil suit is pending between the parties. While so, father of 2^nd respondent colluded with the tenant A2 Rajesh fabricated a document styled as Vardamana letter dated 16.09.2005 and in that letter, as an Advocate-Notary, he authorised the said document, except that he has not committed any offence, but he was falsely implicated in this case as if he has also colluded with father of 2^nd respondent on the fabrication of Vardamana letter. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against him.

¶30

Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that already the matter was settled between landlord and tenant, thereby the proceedings was already quashed by this court in Crl.O.P.No.17031 of 2021 against A2. Hence, this petitioner is also entitled to discharge from the proceedings.

¶31

Page No.3 of 5

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.3178 of 2022

¶34

On perusal of the said order, it reveals that already the 2^nd

¶35

respondent entered into a compromise and amicably settled the issue and the disputed property was also vacated and the premises was handed over to 2^nd respondent on 05.09.2021. So, as on date, issue between the parties was settled. Hence, the charge sheet initiated against this petitioner is also liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in a charge sheet in C.C.No.163 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem is quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶36

06.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rpp To

¶37

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem City, Salem-636 001.

¶38

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶39

Page No.4 of 5

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.3178 of 2022

¶42

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶43

rpp

¶44

CRL.O.P.No.3178 of 2022

¶45

06.02.2024

¶46

Page No.5 of 5

¶47

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

A.Pasupathy v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Pasupathy v. State Rep by

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

R.Devendhiran Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Prasanth Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Kevin Vs State Rep.by Its

Shaik Mohammed Sadiq Vs State Rep by

Rubi @ Rubi Christy Vs the State Rep by Its