Allowed

Palanisamy v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Feb 2024CRL OP/9907/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of PRC proceedings in which the petitioner was arrayed as A1 in a group clash case. The Government Advocate admitted a mistake in identifying A1 and raised no objection. The Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner and permitted police to identify the proper accused.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in PRC.No.37 of 2017 against petitioner quashed; liberty granted to police to identify the proper accused; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Palanisamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9907 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.9907 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.Nos.5830 & 5832 of 2022

Palanisamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Sub- Inspector of Police Virudhachalam Police Station, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶13

2.Sundar ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in PRC.No.37 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Virudhachalam and direct to delete petitioner's name Pazhani @ Pazhanisamy arrayed as A1 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Kadhiresan For R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.9907 of 2022

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the PRC.No.37 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Virudhachalam.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on 14.04.2014, two groups that

¶21

is one Sundar / defacto complainant vagaiyara who belonged to Nachiyarpet area and Prakash vagaiyara who belonged Periyakandiyankuppam village unlawfully assembled and fought among themselves throwing stone, blue metal and wooden log and thereby committed offences under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii), 307 of IPC. FIR also registered on both sides by the respondent police as Crime No.166 of 2014 registered against the defacto complainant / Sundar and impugned FIR in Crime No.167 of 2014 dated 14.04.2014 registered against Prakash Vagaiyara.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the alleged occurrence, by wrong identification the respondent police implicated the petitioner as accused /A1 in Crime No.167 of 2014. In fact one Palanisamy S/o.Selvaraj into Pazhani @ Palanisamy instead Palani @ Palanivel

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.9907 of 2022

¶25

S/o.Chinnadurai is the original accused. To support his contention he relied

¶26

the medical records – AR copy, wherein the respondent police clearly stated that one Palanivel S/o.Selladurai, who is aged about 40 years, when he was admitted in the hospital, in which it also has stated to be assaulted by the defacto complainant and others. Furthermore, the age of the present petitioner is 32 years. On a perusal of the AR copy of the said Palanivel he was aged about 40 years, on wrong identification only the petitioner was implicated as A1. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶27

The learned counsel Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted

¶28

that on verification there was some mistake in identifying A1. He also not raised any objection to delete the name of the petitioner in PRC.No.37 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Virudhachalam.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending in PRC.No.37 of 2017

¶30

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.9907 of 2022

¶33

rri on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Virudhachalam.- Liberty is granted to the respondent police to identify the proper accused person in this case.

¶34

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

07.02.2024

¶36

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No rri

¶37

To 1.The Sub- Inspector of Police Virudhachalam Police Station, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District. Crime No.363 of 2016 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.9907 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5830 & 5832 of 2022

¶39

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

Palanisamy v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanisamy v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

P.Manivasagam Vs the State by

P.Murugesan Vs Inspector of Police

Althap Vs the State Rep.by

Prakash Babu Vs State Rep.by Its

Subramania Gounder (Died) Vs P. Rukani

J.S.V.S. Sarveshwara Rao Vs Inspector of Police