Prabhu Rajkumar v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.02.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRL.OP No. 19213 of 2021 and CRL MP No. 10514 of 2021 1 PRABHU RAJKUMAR

...Petitioners

Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH MANARKUDI TIRUVARUR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.

193/2016.

2.Gunasekaran

...Respondents

PRAYER : This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records pursuant to the FIR Number 193/2016 subsequently made charge sheet on the file of the 1st Respondent Police in PRC No.25 of 2020 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate Manarkudi and quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition. For petitioner : Mr.S.Natarajan For R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Notice returned with endorsement of non known

ORDER

The petitioner herein filed this petition to call for the entire records pursuant to the FIR Number 193/2016 subsequently made charge sheet on the file of the 1st Respondent Police in PRC No.25 of 2020 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate Manarkudi and quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 28.02.2016 stating that his daughter G.Suriya was studying ME in ARJ Engineering College. On 30.01.2016, her daughter was kidnapped by the petitioner and also threatened the defacto complainant that the petitioner would marry her but later his daughter returned to his house. Based on that complaint defacto complainant filed a FIR in Crime No. 193 of 2016 and after completing investigation final report was filed in P.R.C No. 25 of 2020.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant's daughter got married and living happily but the petitioner was

falsely implicated in this case and dragged to the proceedings without any material evidence. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

4. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner stated that they were love each other but her parents was not interested in their marriage hence the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. Further, both the petitioner and the defacto complainant's daughter were major at the time of the alleged occurrence, and thereafter the defacto complainant's daughter was secured and hand over to her parents. As on date, both of them married and settled their life and also there is no material ingredients against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the PRC No.25 of 2020.

5. In the result, this petition is allowed. No Cost. Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.02.2024 pbl To The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

pbl CRL.OP No. 19213 of 2021 and CRL MP No. 10514 of 2021 02.02.2024