Dismissed

Fazuluddin v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Jun 2024CRL OP(MD)/13528/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashment of a charge sheet filed under IPC sections for trespass and assault. The Court held the case required a trial as no prejudice would result and dismissed the plea to dispense with personal appearance except for specific procedural stages.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing dismissed; personal appearance dispensed with except for receiving charge copy, framing charges, Section 313, and judgment.

Fazuluddin Vs The Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13528 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.13528 of 2021 and Crl.MP(MD)No.7026 of 2021

¶7

Fazuluddin

¶8

(Wrongly mentioned as Basludeen instead of Fazuluddin in the Final Report)

¶9

... Petitioner / Accused Nos.1 to 6

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Ilathur Police Station, Ilathur, Tirunelveli District. (In Crime No.70 of 2017) ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant

¶12

2.Seyad Jalaludeen ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto

¶13

Complainant

¶14

PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the charge-sheet filed in S.T.C.No.126 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sengottai and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanithi For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi

¶16

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13528 of 2021

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the

¶22

impugned charge sheet in S.T.C.No.126 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sengottai.

¶23

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein are said to have trespassed into the coconut grove of the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with his hand and also threatened him with dire consequence. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint, based on which, a case in Crime No.70 of 2017 registered for the offence under Sections 447, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the first respondent filed the final report, which was taken on file in S.T.C.No.126 of 2019 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sengottai. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

¶24

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and so many complaints were given by the defacto complainant against the petitioner. It is purely a civil dispute. Earlier property civil disputes

¶25

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

¶26

2/6

¶27

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13528 of 2021

¶28

were referred to Mediator and the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.A.Kader has conducted Arbitration and passed the award. Subsequently, the Arbitration award was challenged before this Court in O.S.No.59 of 2012 and O.S.A.No.173 of 2014. On earlier occasion, two Criminal Original Petitions filed by son of the first petitioner were quashed by this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.3062 of 2021 and Crl.OP(MD)No.14446 of 2020 on 21.05.2021 and 06.07.2021 respectively. These two cases are arisen out of the very same family property disputes. However, the second respondent lodged the present complaint by giving criminal colour to the civil dispute and the first respondent without conducting proper investigation, filed the final report. Accordingly, he prayed to quash the impugned charge sheet.

¶29

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the petitioner herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the charges against the petitioner have to be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13528 of 2021

¶33

5.Time and again, this Court as well as the Supreme Court has cautioned the courts about the necessary precautions to be taken while quashing the charge sheet at the initial stage. Useful reference in this regard can be had to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426).

¶34

6.In the above circumstances, the trial court has rightly taken the case on file and this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if he is subjected to due trial as sufficient opportunity would be given to the petitioner to put forth his defence. The petitioner cannot be let by quashing the charge framed against him as that would completely undermine the alleged acts, which is the subject matter of criminal trial pending against him.

¶35

7.For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground or scope to quash S.T.C.No.126 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sengottai. Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

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

¶37

4/6

¶38

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13528 of 2021

¶39

8.At this juncure, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court.

¶40

9.Considering the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with before the trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶41

i)The personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with except for his appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the presence of the petitioner is necessary, the trial court, at its wisdom, shall direct his appearance on those days.

¶42

21.06.2024 2/2

¶43

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No dss

¶44

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

¶45

5/6

¶46

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13528 of 2021

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

dss

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sengottai.

¶51

The Inspector of Police, Achanpudur Police Station, Ilathur, Tirunelveli District.

¶52

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶53

Crl.O.P(MD)No.13528 of 2021 and Crl.MP(MD)No.7026 of 2021

¶54

21.06.2024

¶55

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

¶56

6/6

Fazuluddin v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fazuluddin v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samlee Vs M.Rengarajan

M.v.Ramanamurthy Vs The Deputy Director

M.v.Ramanamurthy Vs The Deputy Director

Fazuluddin Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Saravanan Vs S.Karthic, B.Sc, Pgdsi

T.P.David Dhas Vs The Sub Inspector of Police