Jayalakshmi v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.01.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and Crl.M.P.No. 15346 of 2022

1. Jayalakshmi

2. Ayyavu @ Venkatesan

3. Karthi

4. Mani

5. Cheran ... Petitioners Vs.

1. State rep.

by Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

(Crime No.374 of 2022)

2. Moorthi .. Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Sec.482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to F.I.R. in Crime No.374 1/5

of 2022 on the file of Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr. S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 R2 - No appearance

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 374 of 2022 on the file of 1st respondent police.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, who lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Accordingly, F.I.R. in Crime No.374 of 2022 was filed against them on 14.05.2022 for an offence under Sec.147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C. As per the complaint, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is the head of fishermen association and on 11.05.2022 at 09.30 a.m., in the fishermen association, there was a 2/5

meeting in respect of leasing out the fish harvesting, at that time, all these petitioners came there and in respect of issuance of tender, there was a wordy quarrel. Hence, a complaint was lodged against the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that 1st petitioner was the successful bidder, since because of earlier tender and so, he also wanted to participate in the new tender, but the defacto complainant, who is also wanted to participate in the tender in order to harass them. Hence, he gave a false complaint against the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate raised objections, however, he admits that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is a successful bidder and it is also known fact that in order to wreck vengeance, on the date of tender, the petitioners went there and there was a wordy quarrel. But, there is no basic materials to lodge the F.I.R. against these petitioners and the same was filed only with an intention to harass them. Hence, I do not find any materials to proceed with the case and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is 3/5

dismissed and the proceedings initiated in F.I.R. in Crime No.374 of 2022 on the file of 1st respondent police is quashed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 11.01.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp To

1. Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 11.01.2024 5/5