Josephraj v. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore.2.The Inspector of Police, Vandalur
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 294(b), 420, 465, 506(i)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Pavanasam ... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.423 of 2021, pending on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner…
Judgment
Crl.O.P.No.20549 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.02.2024CORAM :THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVICrl.O.P.No.20549 of 2022and Crl.M.P.No.15056 of 2022 Josephraj ... PetitionerVersus1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore.
The Inspector of Police, Vandalur Police Station, Vandalur.
Pavanasam ... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.423 of 2021, pending on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner: No representationFor R1 & R2: Mr.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)For R3: Mr.A.Sathish Kumar1\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20549 of 2022ORDERThis petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.423 of 2021, pending on the file of the second respondent as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294(b), 465, 420 and 506(i) of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- to the petitioner for getting employment in Canada for his son and another sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from one person Ravichandran for employment to his son in Singapore through the Chennai Agents Rajkumar, hailing from Bethel Nagar in Eachampakkam an Sun TV employee Vijayakumar of Pattinapakkam with the help of the petitioner.
Thereafter, the petitioner neither arranged the job as he promised nor returned the money, thereby cheated the defacto complainant. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that it is a case of job racketing, there are two victims and the amount involved is more than 18 lakhs. He further submitted that it is only at the stage of FIR, it needs detailed investigation. Hence, he opposed to quash the FIR against the petitioner.2\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20549 of 20224. Considering the facts and circumstance, and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), there are two victims and the amount involved is more than 18 lakhs where said to be given by them. It needs detailed investigation. I do not find any ingredient to quash the proceeding in Crime No.423 of 2021, pending on the file of the second respondent.
Operative part
The prosecutor is directed to submit the final report as early as possible. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.02.2024Index : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NorriTo1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore. 2. The Inspector of Police, Vandalur Police Station, Vandalur.3\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20549 of 20223. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.rriCrl.O.P.No.20549 of 2022and Crl.M.P.No.15056 of 202220.02.20244\4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 294(b), 420, 465, 506(i).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.