Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- T V THAMILSELVI
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 294(b), 323, 506(2)
Judgment
Operative part
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.01.2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICRL.OP No. 20721 of 2022 RAGAVAN ...PetitionerVs.1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALLIKONDA POLICE STATION VELLORE DISTRICT.2 V.P.PRAKASAM ...RespondentsPRAYER : This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the connected records made in Crime No.292/2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police Palikonda Police station and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.SankarasubbuFor R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)For R2 : Not Appeared https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 ORDERThe petitioner herein filed this petition to call for the connected records made in Crime No.292/2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police Palikonda Police station and quash the same. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that on 13.04.2019 the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log and also abused him. Based on the complainant lodged by the defacto complainant the respondent police filed a FIR in crime No. 292 of 2019 under Section 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC. Challenging the said FIR the petitioner filed this petition and to quash the same. 4. Despite serving notice there is no representation on the side of the defacto complainant.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was dispute between the father/defacto complainant and son/petitioner herein. Due to the pendency of the FIR the petitioner is not able to stary https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3his legal carrier as a law graduate. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.6. Considering the facts of the case, there was family dispute between the father/defacto complainant and son/petitioner herein which culminated into the complaint. Further, there is no prime facie material against the petitioner to show that the petitioner was attacked the defacto complainant on the date of alleged occurrence. Therefore, FIR in crime No. 292 of 2019 is hereby quashed. 7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. No Costs. 24.01.2024pblToThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.pblCRL.OP No. 20721 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
524.01.2024
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 294(b), 323, 506(2).
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.