Madras High Court
Jeevitha vs State Rep.By on 12 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.8587 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.8587 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.4571 of 2019
Jeevitha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep.by
Sub-Inspector of Police
K-2, Ayyanavaram Police Station
Chennai 600 023.
2.Gnanavel ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the same in C.C.No.8002
of 2018 pending on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8587 of 2019
ORDER
This petition had been filed to call for the records and quash the same
in C.C.No.8002 of 2018 pending on the file of the V Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner
is the Accused in this case registered in Crime No.382 of 2018. There was
some dispute earlier between the Accused herein and the Police Officials.
Subsequently, on 17.07.2018 in continuation of the same dispute, a quarrel
arose between them. Hence, First Information Report in Crime No.382 of
2018 was registered before the Ayyanavaram Police Station, Chennai City
Police.
3. Subsequently, the person, who registered the First Information
Report himself proceeded with the investigation and laid the Final Report.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the final report is not
fair. Hence, the final report is to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
In support of his submission, he relied upon the ruling of this Court in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8587 of 2019
judgment of Pandiyarajan and Ors. Vs. State and Ors., reported in 2020 1
MLJ (Cri) 578. He invited the attention of this Court to the observation of
the learned Judge in the final part, which relied upon the rulings of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Based on which, this charge sheet cannot be
entertained.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently objects
to the line of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The
learned Counsel by referring to the typed set of papers, submitted that PW4
Ramakrishnan, is an eye witness to the incident, whereas PW10 is another
Ramakrishnan, who is the Investigation Officer. Therefore, this case is
maintainable.
5. The said submission of the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) is vehemently objected by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
by placing reliance on the signature in the First Information Report in Page
No.3 and list of witness in Page No.12, which are similar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8587 of 2019
6. The above submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is
found acceptable. In the light of the fact that same signatures, found in the
charge sheet as well as the First Information Report, the ruling of the High
Court in the case of Pandiyarajan (referred Supra) is squarely applicable to
the facts of this case. In the light of the above, the final report filed by the
Ayyanavaram Police Station in Crime No.382 of 2018 is quashed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8587 of 2019
To
1.The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police
K-2, Ayyanavaram Police Station
Chennai 600 023.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8587 of 2019
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
dna
Crl.O.P.No.8587 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.4571 of 2019
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
