Dismissed

K.Manjunadhasamy v. State Rep by

Madras HC3 Jan 2024CRL OP/4073/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal original petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was filed on grounds of false implication and discrepancies in the FIR. The High Court, noting the grave nature of the offence and lack of contradictory material from the petitioners, dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed concurrently.

K.Manjunadhasamy Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4073 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4073 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No. 2002 of 2022

¶9

K.Manjunadhasamy

¶10

Kumarasamy

¶11

Subbamal

¶12

Dhanalakshmi

¶13

... Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Malliyakarai Police Station, Malliyakarai, Salem Dt. (Crime No. 221 of 2020)

¶16

Shanmugasundaram

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to C.C.No.222 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem and quash the same.

¶19

Page No.1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.4073 of 2022

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶25

criminal case in C.C.No. 222 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem.

¶26

2. Heard both sides.

¶27

The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the 1^st

¶28

petitioner is a press reporter and he actively involved in social works, give

¶29

his voice to the needy people as against the atrocities done against them. So, till date, he faced number of litigations, thereby, he was falsely implicated in this case. Moreover, the present F.I.R. is nothing but a case on counter since being the reason on 18.06.2020 around 07.30 p.m. the 4^th petitioner lodged a complaint against the 2^nd petitioner stating that he

¶30

Page No.2 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.4073 of 2022

¶33

along with other accused trespassed into 1^st petitioner's shop and criminally intimidated to send 1^st petitioner along with them and the same was refused by the 3^rd petitioner herein, due to which, they threatened him with dire consequences. Accordingly, based on the complaint of 3^rd petitioner, the F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.220 of 2020. He would also submit that there are many discrepancies in the F.I.R. as well as in the charge sheet. Hence, he wanted to quash the proceedings.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for 1^st respondent raised objections stating that after completion of investigation, the final report was filed and a charge sheet was taken on file.

¶35

On seeing the facts, it reveals that offence registered against the petitioners are grave in nature, which requires detailed investigation and also needs evidence. Therefore, on considering the fact that already as per the final report, the petitioners were charged under Sec. 294(b), 323, 341, 324, 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.221 of 2020 on the file of Judicial

¶36

Page No.3 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.4073 of 2022

¶39

Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem. But, there is no contradictory materials on the side of petitioners to quash the proceedings. Apart from that, the reasons assigned by them to quash the proceedings is baseless and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

03.01.2024

¶41

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rpp

¶42

¶43

1.The Inspector of Police, Malliyakarai Police Station, Malliyakarai, Salem Dt.

¶44

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶45

Page No.4 of 5

¶46

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

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.4073 of 2022

¶48

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶49

rpp

¶50

CRL.O.P.No.4073 of 2022

¶51

03.01.2024

¶52

Page No.5 of 5

¶53

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

K.Manjunadhasamy v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Manjunadhasamy 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

Aravind Vs State by

P.Sundar Vs State Rep by

T. Dubash Shankar @ Shankar Vs Union of India

Y.Vimala Bai Vs the State Rep by

A.Karunakaran Vs Nissar Ahamed

Kishore Prabhu Vs Inspector of Police