Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 294(b), 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The State reported the charge sheet was filed before the interim stay. Recording this, the Court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.265 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.265 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.157 of 2022
1.Ponnaiah
2.Gurunathan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Sub Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagar Police Station, Thootukudi District.
2.Selvi ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records and quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.152 of 2021 dated 13.09.2021 registered on the file of the first respondent police under Sections 294(b), 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
1/4
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.265 of 2022
For petitioners : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For R1 : Mr.B.Nambiselvan, Additional Public Prosecutor
O RDER
When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would submit that after completion of investigation, the first respondent filed charge sheet, which was taken on file in C.C.No.74 of 2022 by the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate.
2.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that this Court granted an order of interim stay on 07.01.2022, however, the respondent police filed the charge sheet.
3.In reply, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit
that prior to the granting of interim stay, the first respondent police conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet as early as on 23.09.2021 and hence, nothing survives in this petition for further
adjudication.
2/4
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.265 of 2022
5.However, recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. The petitioners are at liberty to workout their remedy in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.01.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No gns
To
3/4
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.265 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI. J.
gns
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.265 of 2022
22.01.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR in Crime No.152 of 2021 should be quashed; whether the petition survives after charge sheet filed before interim stay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ponnaiah
Gurunathan
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Sub Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagar Police Station
Selvi
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
