Dismissed

C.Srinivasalu v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC7 Jun 2024CRL OP/5577/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed to quash the final report in a criminal case involving property dispute. The court held that sufficient material existed to frame charges and evidence needed to be appreciated before termination.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash final report dismissed. Direction to trial court to take up both pending cases and dispose of them early. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

C.Srinivasalu Vs the State Rep by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.5577 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.5577 of 2023 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.3498 & 3496 of 2024

¶8

1. Mr.C.Srinivasalu. 2. Mrs.S.Manjula. 3. Mr.S.Charan Yadav @ Charan. 4. Mr.M.Murugesan @ Murugesh. 5. Mr.S.Raveendra Reddy @ Raveendranath Reddy. ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5

¶9

/versus/

¶10

1.State By The Inspector of Police, Hosur Town Police Station, Krishnagiri. ... 1 st Respondent/Complainant

¶11

2. Mr.Venkatesan ... 2 nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.528 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II. Hosur and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.Nagarajan For R1 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.A.Balamurugan

¶14

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

¶15

1/5

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.5577 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed to quash the final report culminating in taking cognizance of the offences under Section 147, 294(b) and 506 (2) of I.P.C., in C.C.No.528 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate – II, Hosur.

¶19

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

¶20

property dispute between the family members had led to some minor altercation between the parties on 10.07.2022. The matter was reported to the respondent police and after enquiry it was closed as civil dispute. However, on a private complaint under Section 156 (iii) of Cr.P.C., the respondent police has taken up the complaint and on completion of investigation final report filed. Stating that already a civil suit and arbitration proceedings are pending and it is purely a civil dispute which has been given a trapping of criminal nature to rick vengeance against the petitioner herein who has initiated criminal prosecution against the defacto complainant in the year 2019.

¶21

3. After notice, the Learned Counsel for the respondent/defacto complainant appeared through counsel and submitted that there is an audio and video evidence to substantiate the criminal intimidation. Since the case is not

¶22

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

¶23

2/5

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.5577 of 2023

¶25

mere a civil dispute but threat of dire consequence by members of unlawful assembly, the case does not fall within the parameters enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to quash the final report.

¶26

4. After hearing the Learned Counsels for some time and perusing the record, this Court finds that though substantially it is property dispute between the family members, after initiating suits and arbitration proceedings, the present incident has happened on 22.07.2022. After investigation as per the direction of the Judicial Magistrate, final report been filed and same taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate.

¶27

5. In view of the fact that the material collected on the face of it sufficient to frame charge and proceed. The case cannot be terminated by quashing without appreciation of evidence. Hence, the petition to quash in C.C.No.528 of 2022 is dismissed. Since earlier case registered against this defacto complainant/respondent is also pending before the same Court in C.C.No.118 of 2022, it is suffice to direct the trial Court to take up both the case and dispose it of as early as possible.

¶28

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

¶29

3/5

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.5577 of 2023

¶31

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶32

dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶33

07.06.2024

¶34

Index : Yes/No. Neutral Citation : Yes/No. bsm Copy to:- 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II. Hosur 2.The Inspector of Police, Hosur Town Police Station, Krishnagiri. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶35

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

¶36

4/5

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.5577 of 2023

¶38

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶39

bsm

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.5577 of 2023 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3498 & 3496 of 2024

¶41

07.06.2024

¶42

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

¶43

5/5

C.Srinivasalu v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Srinivasalu 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

Kamal Kamesh Vs Navneeth Ahmed

M/S. Cool Navy Vs M/S. Jeans Brand Factory, v

S.Shankar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Lifecell International Private Limited Rep.by Its Vs State Represented by

Siva Vs the Commissioner of Police

Renu Vs the State Rep by Its