Aunthanthi v. The Inspector Of Police
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2469 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2469 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.1822 of 2022 Arunthathi
...Petitioner/ Accused No.27
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police, Guzhilamparai Police Station, Dindigul.
... 1st Respondent/ Complainant
2. N.Pon Gunasekaran, Sub Inspector of Police, Guzilamparai Police Station, Dindigul District.
...2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.74 of 2017 dated 25.04.2017 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner/A27 For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathiroy For Respondents: Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.74 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.04.2017 the defacto complainant/second respondent initiate suo motu complaint before the first respondent alleging that all the accused persons demonstrate and agitated against the welfare of the farmers by opposing farmer's law hence the present First Information Report came to be registered.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the facts of the case are exactly similar to the case covered in the decision reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2469 of 2022 Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District] dated 20.09.2018 and in the case of Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and other in batch of cases in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the facts of the case are similar to the facts covered under the Judgment referred above. 5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
6. Perused the materials on record
7. It is also seen that the petitioner is minor aged about 17 years at the time of occurrence. Further the facts of this case is similar to the facts covered by the Judgment of this Court reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District] dated 20.09.2018 and in case of Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and other in batch of cases in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019. Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No.74 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner alone and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. The Inspector of Police, Guzhilamparai Police Station, Dindigul.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate (SR-4664[F] dated 08/02/2022) Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2469 of 2022 07.02.2022 aav MS/22.02.2022/2P.4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2