Ganesh Kumar v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP and Crl.M.P.Nos.1697/2022& 7121 of 2021 Ganesh Kumar ... Petitioner

Versus

1.The State, represented by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Vellore.

(Crime No.18/2020) 2.Sai Prasanthi 3.The Inspector of Police CBCID, Vellore (Crime No.1 of 2021) (R3 impleaded as per order in Crl.M.P.No.11618/2021 in Crl.O.P.No.12887/2021 dated 18.11.2021)

...Respondents

1/6

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.18 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vellore, the first Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mathivanan For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran for R1 & R3 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) : R2- No Appearance

ORDER

This petition had been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.18 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vellore, the first Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought time to file a compromise memo stating that the parties have agreed to marry.

2/6

3. On verification, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on earlier occasion the Criminal Original Petition filed by the same Petitioner to quash the First Information Report was dismissed with the direction that the CBCID has to investigate the matter as it involves larger interest of the Society. Based on the same, All Women Police Station, Vellore was directed to hand over the investigation CD file to the CBCID Police. Accordingly, then Director General of CBCID had issued the proceedings appointing the Investigation Officer.

4. Now, the Investigation had proceeded and almost investigation has been completed. On perusal of the CD file it is found that there are similar allegation against the very same Petitioner from different women and in those facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case to quash the First Information 3/6

Report, on the ground that the Petitioner herein and the second Respondent had arrived at compromise. If it is allowed the larger interest of the society will be lost by the atrocities of the Petitioner herein, who is employed in the Government Job. The Director General of Police is also directed to conduct the enquiry regarding the same, which resulted in the registration of the First Information Report against him. Further, the Director General of Prison is directed to initiate Departmental action against the Petitioner under the Government Servants conduct Rules, regarding the conduct of the Government servant. On perusal of the Case Diary from the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) this is not a fit case for quashing the First Information Report on the pretext of "compromise, arrived between the Petitioner and the second Respondent."

5. The second Respondent submitted that in this petition the second respondent already changed her mind after an earlier 4/6

compromise and that cannot be considered. The investigation has been proceeded and pending final report, this is not a fit case for quashing the First Information Report, when the Learned Single Judge had transferred the investigation on earlier occasion and the very same Petitioner had filed this petition seeking to quash the First Information Report.

6. Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 30.06.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dna 5/6

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.

dna To 1.The Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Erode. 2.The Inspector of Police Anti Land Grabbing Cell Erode.

(Crime No.41/2011) 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

and Crl.M.P.Nos.1697/2022& 7121 of 2021 30.06.2022 6/6