Sub Inspector Of Police Kuruvikulam P.S Vs Lawarnce Jesudoss S/o Paldhasan

Upon perusing the documents and case records of the above CC. 937/2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi for the offence under Sections 294(b),323 and 4 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 and TN PROHIBITION OF HARASSMENT OF

¶15

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

¶16

WOMAN ACT, 2002 transmitted to this Court and hearing the arguments of Mr.S.Ravi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and hearing

¶17

the concerned probation officer this Court passes the following

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Suo Motu case is dealt with in an extraordinary manner by the Dedicated Bench, pursuant to Suo Motu W.P.(Crl).M.D.No.1014 of 2025.

¶20

Due to the petty dispute arose between them, the petitioner registered the case in Crime No.108 of 2021 upon receipt of the complaint from the defacto complainant and completed the investigation and filed final report under Sections 294(b),323 and 4 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 and TN PROHIBITION OF HARASSMENT OF WOMAN ACT, 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi and the same was taken on file in CC.937/2022 and is pending. Both the complainant and the Inspector of Police and the accused were present before the learned Judicial Magistrate and appeared

¶21

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

¶22

through video conference and this Court recorded the statement of the complainant and accused that they settled the issues and buried the hatchet dispute bonafidely and they are living peacefully and agreed to close the case. Considering that the dispute is trivial in nature and now both the complainant and accused have settled their dispute voluntarily without any threat or coercion, and also this Court on noting the demeanor of the complainant, finds no chance for coercion or threat and the accused has no previous antecedents and both are living peacefully and since the case comes within the parameters of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 and other related judgments and the case is pending without trial and continuation of the trial by examining the witnesses would lead to wastage of time and wastage of Government exchequer and also lead to docket explosion without adjudication and the chance of conviction even after the full-fledged trial would also bleak, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶23

The observations, discussions and decisions made in this

¶24

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

¶25

particular case can not be quoted as precedent in the cases arising in future as the decision has been taken in this suomotu writ based on factual and legal basis of this particular case.

¶26

4.Observation:

¶27

This Court suo motu called for the records and exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the same and hence this verdict does not confer any right to any of the accused or any party to file a case against the Investigating Agency for the malicious prosecution or claim damages.

¶28

5. Precedent Value:

¶29

The observations, discussions and decision made in this particular

¶30

case cannot be treated as precedent in the case arising in future as the decision has been taken in this suo motu are based on the factual and legal basis of this particular case.

¶31

Accordingly, the CC.937/2022 on the file of the learned

¶32

Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi is quashed and this Suo Motu Transfer case stands closed.

¶33

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

¶34

25-11-2025

¶35

Note to the Trial Court: This order is digitally signed and communicated electronically alone. The Trial Court shall take note of the order and accordingly classify the case pending before them as allowed / dismissed / disposed of, etc, and while doing so, consider any applications such as disposal of properties, etc., and pass appropriate orders, as may be necessary. Further, the Court below is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to all concerned.

¶36

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

Sub Inspector Of Police Kuruvikulam P.S v. Lawarnce Jesudoss S/o Paldhasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sub Inspector Of Police Kuruvikulam P.S v. Lawarnce Jesudoss S/o Paldhasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Of Tamilnadu Rep by Si of Police P.E.W Ps Nagercoil Vs Salamon Baras

State Of Tamilnadu Rep by Si of Police P.E.W Ps Nagercoil Vs Vellaisamy

State Government of the Sip Paramakudi Town Ps Vs Kumarraja

Inspector of Police Vs Bazir Mohammed and 3 others

Sub Inspector of police, Sivagiri Vs Pernath

Inspector of police,Thiruppathur Vs Manikandan