M.Abdul Rahuman v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.02.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14515 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 M.Abdul Rahuman ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Adirampattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District.

(Crime No.129 of 2011) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Mohammed Jamuludeen ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the order in Crime No.129 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar For R1 : Mr.A.Robinson, G.A.(Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.129 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent Police. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the FIR in Crime No.129 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

2.In order to substantiate to claim made in this petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner being the advocate, the respondent Police purposely in order to harass the petitioner foisted this false case against the petitioner.

3.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that having regard the alleged offence suit has been pending.

4.Now, on going through the averment made in FIR, it would appear that the de facto complainant in a complaint lodged before the first respondent made allegation that on 19.05.2011 at night https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

hours, all the accused in this case came to his house and forcibly kidnapped one Sajitha, who is his daughter-in-law and one Anisha, who is the sister of the said Sajitha.

5.During that time, the de facto complainant questioned the same before accused, all accused were abused him and made criminal intimidation and finally took 70 sovereigns of gold jewes and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from his custody. No doubt those allegations are all is a matter of evidence.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not indicate the illegality committed by R1 in registering the case. So, the grounds raised by the petitioner for quashing FIR, are not having any merits. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Adirampattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.129 of 2011) 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to M/s.V.Sasikumar, Advocate, SR.No.50044 gns RL/4C/2p/JC/SAR1/2/4/2018 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14515 of 2013 20.02.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/