Allowed

Ramu v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Jan 2024CRL OP(MD)/23465/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes an FIR under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act against the petitioner. The court accepted the petitioner's challenge regarding the non-filing of the final report within the stipulated time under Section 468 Cr.P.C., deeming it a fit case for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No. 505 of 2021 on the file of the first Respondent Police was quashed.

Ramu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23465 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

CRL.O.P (MD) No.23465 of 2023

Ramu

...Petitioner

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, PEW Thuraiyur, Trichy District, Crime No.505 of 2021

¶11

2.Sivaraman

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to call for the entire records in Crime No.505 of 2021 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu For R1 : Mr.M.Veeranthiran Government Advocate

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23465 of 2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 505 of 2021 on the file of the first Respondent Police.

¶20

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.505 of 2021 for the offence under Section 4 (1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (Transport), on the file of the first respondent, for which the punishment is for a period of 3 months imprisonment or with fine. Even though the FIR was registered in the year 2021, till date the final report is not taken on file. It is his further submission that the final report was not laid within the stipulated period as per Section 468 Cr.P.C.,

¶21

3.The learned Government Advocate concedes that the final report

¶22

was not filed within the time prescribed under 468 Cr.P.C

¶23

4.In the light of the submission of the learned Government Advocate,

¶24

this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for quashing of

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23465 of 2023

¶28

the FIR. Hence, the FIR in Crime No.505 of 2021 on the file of the first Respondent Police is hereby quashed against the petitioner.

¶29

This Criminal Original Petition is allowed, accordingly.

¶30

Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/No mm To

¶31

02.01.2024

¶32

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, PEW Thuraiyur, Trichy District,

¶33

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

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23465 of 2023

¶37

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

¶38

¶39

CRL.O.P (MD) No.23465 of 2023

¶40

02.01.2024

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

Ramu v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Gowri Shankar, M/a 44 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

G.Jothi @ Sironmani Vs P .Raman

A.Koutilyan Vs a.Bharathi

K.Malliga Vs The Superintendent of Police

R.Logeswaran Vs The Inspector of police

Kannan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police