Quashed

S.Balasubramanian v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Jun 2024CRL OP(MD)/15641/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed Criminal Case No.23 of 2020 filed against the petitioner for electoral offences. The Court held that since the charge sheet was filed without obtaining the requisite sanction from the competent authority, continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The case in C.C.No.23 of 2020 is quashed as against the petitioner and the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

S.Balasubramanian Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15641 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD).No. 15641 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD).No. 7663 of 2020

S.Balasubramanian

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, T.Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.81 of 2020) 2.V.Sundaravel

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.23 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For respondent No.1 : Mr. R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For 2^nd respondent : No appearance

¶14

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

¶15

1/5

¶16

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15641 of 2020

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.23 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur and quash the same.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant who was working as a Special Officer of flying squad, have conducted inspection at T.Kallupatti Main Road and at that time, the petitioner was standing near the xerox shop and found that he is in possession of a sum of Rs.1,02,600/-. On investigation it reveals that the petitioner is offering money for vote and hence, they seized the said amount. Based on which, the 2^nd respondent preferred a complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.81 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 171(H), 171(E) and 188 of IPC on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner. Thereafter, the case has been charge sheeted in C.C.No.23 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶21

as per the First Information Report, on the date of occurrence the first 2/5

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15641 of 2020

¶24

respondent has conducted enquiry and arrested the petitioner and seized the amount of Rs.1,02,600/- from him on the spot. But in the charge sheet, the first respondent has stated that they have conducted enquiry against the petitioner and at that time, he escaped from the occurrence place, which is totally contrary to the First Information Report. He would further submit that for registering these type of offences, sanction is necessary from the competent authority, but, without obtaining the same, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and hence, prays for allowing this petition.

¶25

Even though the first respondent has filed a detailed counter, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent fairly conceded the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the sanction from the competent authority is very much necessary for registering the above said offences.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances and also

¶27

considering the fact that the charge sheet was filed as against the petitioner, without obtaining sanction from the competent authority, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the prosecution

¶28

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

¶29

3/5

¶30

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15641 of 2020

¶31

against the petitioner will amount to abuse of the process of law. Hence, charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

¶32

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed

¶33

and the case in C.C.No.23 of 2020 on the file of the District MunsifCum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur is hereby quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶34

13.06.2024

¶35

Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order trp

¶36

¶37

The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur

¶38

The Sub Inspector of Police, T.Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai District.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

4/5

¶42

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15641 of 2020

¶43

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

¶44

Trp

¶45

Crl.O.P(MD).No. 15641 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD).No. 7663 of 2020

¶46

13.06.2024

¶47

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

¶48

5/5

S.Balasubramanian v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Balasubramanian 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

V.Raja Vs The Inspector of Police

P. Ram Kumar Vs the Executive Magistrate

M.Srinivasan Vs The Forest Range Officer

Durairaj.K Vs the Home Secretary

S.Veera Raghavan Vs D.Vasantha Malliga

M/s.Hannah Joseph Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Vs P.S.Dhanalakshmi