← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/5526/2022allowed

Fathima Babu v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-03-25Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5526 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.3927 of 2022 Fathima Babu (Wrongly mentioned as Fathima Babu instead of Fathima in FIR)

...Petitioner/Accused No.I

Vs.

1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No.657 of 2016)

...Respondent Mo 1/Complainant

2. Suresh Additional Head Quarters Tahsildhar Election Flying Squad Thoothkudi Assembly Constituency Thoothukudi District ...2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.657 of 2016 on the file of respondent No.1 Police Station and quash as against the petitioner concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.Henri Tiphagne For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.657 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police.

2.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 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

2019 dated 30.08.2019

3. 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. 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

5. Perused the materials on record.

6.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.71 of 2017 on the file of the 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 (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) aav To

1. The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.R.KARUNANIDHI, Advocate ( SR-14968[F] dated 28/03/2022 ) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5526 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.3927 of 2022 25.03.2022 SP(CO) KB(01.04.2022) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2