Madras High Court
Duraikrishnan vs State Through By on 15 April, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD).No.648 of 2021
1. Duraikrishnan
2. Vaigundaraja
3. Dhivaker ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State through by
The Inspector of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
In Crime No.411 of 2017,
Tirunelveli District.
2. Selvin ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the FIR in Crime No.
411 of 2017 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same as against
the petitioner is concern.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Susikumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for records relating to
the FIR in Crime No.411 of 2017 on the file of the 1st Respondent and to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2021
quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the 2nd respondent, the defacto
complainant was studying 3rd year at Pet Polytechnic College. On
07.10.2017 at about 7.30 p.m, while he was standing near the bus stop, the
petitioners were said to have come there and abused him using filthy
language. The defacto complaint was lodged on the same day and
registration in Crime No.411/17 on the file of the first respondent.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the offence
alleged against him is punishable under Sections 294(ii) of IPC. The date of
alleged occurrence is 07.10.2017 at about 7.30 PM., even though a lapse of
3 years, investigation is not completed, a final report is filed by the
Investigation Officer. In the counter, it is stated that the investigation is
completed. But sofar final report is not filed.
4. Reliance is placed upon the Judgment of this Court in Crl.OP.
(MD).No.991 of 2015, dated 19.09.2019 to support his contention. This
Court has observed that if the Investigation is not completed before the
expiry of the limitation, the cognizance is barred under Section 468 of
Cr.P.C and so prosecution is liable to be quashed. For the offence under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2021
Section 294(b) of IPC, punishment imprisonment is 3 months or fine or
both. As per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the limitation period is one year. But
sofar no application is filed seeking extention of time or condone the delay.
5. Hence, the FIR in Crime No.411 of 2017 on the file of the first
respondent stands quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
kmm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Inspector of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J.,
kmm
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2021
15.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
