H.B.Saravana Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

H.B.Saravana Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the first respondent police is directed to complete the investigation, file a charge sheet expeditiously, and follow the Full Bench guidelines in the T.Balaji case for the case in counter.

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.Rs in Crime No.49 of 2024 (dated 04.02.2024) and Crime No.03/2024 (dated 05.01.2024) on the file of the first respondent should be quashed as illegal, incompetent and abuse of process of law under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

On a perusal of the records, though the complainant in both F.I.Rs is the same, the cause of action is different; the Court is not satisfied with the grounds taken by the petitioner and declines to quash the F.I.Rs.

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet as early as possible.

Key takeaways

As far as the case in counter is concerned, the first respondent police is directed to follow the guide lines issued by the Full Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4587 of 2024 etc., batch cases (T.Balaji case, order dated 08.08.2024).ratio¶30
Both Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.No.607 of 2024) is closed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras HC (P. Velmurugan, J.), Crl.O.P.Nos.946 & 4382 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.607 of 2024, order dated 07.01.2025: Criminal Original Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of twin F.I.Rs — Crime No.3 of 2024 (dt. 05.01.2024) and Crime No.49 of 2024 (dt. 04.02.2024) — of Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri, registered against petitioner H.B.Saravana Kumar and others on the complaint of Sathiyamoorthy (second respondent), allegedly for the very same incident, DISMISSED. The Court found that though the complainant in both F.I.Rs is the same, the cause of action is different, and was not satisfied with the petitioner's grounds. The first respondent police was directed to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet as early as possible; as far as the case in counter is concerned, the police were directed to follow the guide lines issued by the Full Bench of the Court in Crl.O.P.No.4587 of 2024 etc., batch cases (T.Balaji and another Vs State represented by the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai and another, order dated 08.08.2024). Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Crl.O.P.Nos.946 & 4382 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07-01-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN

Crl.O.P.Nos.946 & 4382 of 2024 and

Crl.M.P.No.607 of 2024

H.B.Saravana Kumar Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.

Vs

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri. (Crime No.49 of 2024) (Crime No.03 of 2024)

Sathiyamoorthy

Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.

COMMON PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in First Information Report in Crime No.49 of 2024, dated 04.02.2024 and Crime No.03/2024, dated 05.01.2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and abuse of process of law.

in both cases

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Harikrishnan

Page 1 of 5

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

Crl.O.P.Nos.946 & 4382 of 2024

For Respondents: Mr.S.Sugendran, (for R1) Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.S.Praveennath (for R2)

COMMON ORDER

This Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records in First Information Report in Crime No.49 of 2024, dated 04.02.2024 and Crime No.03/2024, dated 05.01.2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and abuse of process of law.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent/Police police and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, based on the

complaint made by the de-facto complainant/second respondent, F.I.R in Crime No.3 of 2024 has been registered as against the petitioner and

Page 2 of 5

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

Crl.O.P.Nos.946 & 4382 of 2024

others, on the file of the first respondent/Police on 05.01.2024. Subsequently, another case in Crime No.49 of 2024 has also been registered as against the petitioner and others on 04.02.2024 ,for the very same incident. Hence, the petitioner prays to quash both the F.I.Rs.

On a perusal of the records, it is seen that though the complainant in both the F.I.Rs is same, but the cause of action is different. This Court is not satisfied with the grounds taken by the petitioner. The first respondent/ Police is directed to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet as early as possible. As far as the case in counter is concerned, the first respondent/Police is directed to follow the guide lines issued by the Full Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4587 of 2024 etc., batch cases in the case of T.Balaji and another Vs State represented by the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai and another , by order dated 08.08.2024.

Page 3 of 5

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

Crl.O.P.Nos.946 & 4382 of 2024

In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.01.2025

mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

To

The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

Page 4 of 5

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

Crl.O.P.Nos.946 & 4382 of 2024

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa

Crl.O.P.No.946 & 4382 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.607 of 2024

07.01.2025

Page 5 of 5

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