Dismissed

M.Rajakala v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Jun 2024CRL OP/9958/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of the final report in Crime No.302 of 2023 claiming it was a money dispute. The State reported that investigation concluded with a final report for offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, taken on file as C.C.No.288 of 2024. The High Court found no merit and dismissed the petition, directing expedited trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9958 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated:13.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.P.No.9958 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.6843 of 2024

¶7

1.M.Rajakala 2.K.Ramesh

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

/versus/

¶10

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Naduveerapattu Police Station, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶11

2.Gnanasekaran

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the Cr.No.302 of 2023, dated 30.11.2023 on the file of the Naduveerapattu Police Station, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners :Mr.E.Shanmugasundaram For Respondents :Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 No appearance for R2

¶15

¶16

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.9958 of 2024

¶19

The petition is filed to quash the final report on the premises that there is no material to proceed with the investigation, since it is purely a money dispute.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on completion of investigation, final report has been filed for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC based on the material collected during the investigation. Therefore, submitted that it is not a case of money dispute or civil nature, but all trapped in criminal prosecution. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also submitted that the final report has been taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore and it has been assigned as C.C.No.288 of 2024.

¶21

In the light of the above facts, the petition to quash has no

¶22

legs to survive. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it, within a reasonable time. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.9958 of 2024

¶26

13.06.2024

¶27

Index:yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order Neutral citation:yes/no ari To: 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Naduveerapattu Police Station, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶28

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶29

ari

¶30

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.9958 of 2024

¶32

Crl.P.No.9958 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.6843 of 2024

¶33

13.06.2024

¶34

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Rajakala v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Rajakala v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Senthilvel Vs Anu Akshaya Auto Finance

Dr.Nirmal Joe M.B.B.S.D.M.R.D Vs the State Rep by

R.Chandran Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Azhagan @ Prabhu Vs Director General of Prisons and

Pownambal Ammal Vs the Superintendent of Police

Girishkumar @ Girish R Shah Vs State Rep by