Arul Francis vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 13 July, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Arul Francis vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 13 July, 2017

Bench: S.S.Sundar

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 13.07.2017  

CORAM   

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR        
                                                                        
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8892 of 2017 


Arul Francis                                            ... Petitioner

-Vs-


1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
    Sivagangai Sub Division,
    Sivagangai District.

2. The Inspector of Police,
    Ilayankudi Police Station,
    Ilayankudi,
    Sivagangai District.                                       ... Respondents


        
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent not to harass the
petitioner by insisting him to produce the Tractor Documents to the Tractor
bearing Registration No.TN63AA-5737 in the course of enquiry in connection
Crime No.186 of 2014 which had been sold long back. 


!For Petitioner         :       Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi

^For R-1 & R-2  :       Mr.K.Anbarasan, 
                                                Government Advocate(Crl.side).


        
:ORDER

This Criminal Original petition is filed for a direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioner by insisting him to produce the Tractor Documents to the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN63AA-5737 in the course of enquiry in connection with Crime No.186 of 2014 which had been sold long back.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a case was registered in Crime No.186 of 2014, dated 13.07.2014 against the petitioner and one other for the alleged offence under Sections 379 of I.P.C., r/w 4(1), 21(AA) of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, by the second respondent.

4. It is in the said circumstances, the petitioner who is the main accused in the criminal case, appears to have sold the Tractor during the pendency of the criminal case.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had already sold the Tractor which was involved in the offence and that therefore, instead of proceedings against the Tractor and the present purchaser, the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed under the guise of enquiry, particularly, by calling the petitioner to produce the documents.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the second respondent registered a false case against the petitioner. The fact that the case was registered in Crime No.186 of 2014 against the petitioner is not in dispute. The criminal case is only against the petitioner and not the Tractor. Merely because the petitioner sold the Tractor, it cannot be held that the respondent police does not have any valid ground to investigate into the crime and to proceed further. The petition is misconceived. Hence the Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai Sub Division, Sivagangai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ilayankudi Police Station, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court