Madras High Court
E.Ezhilarasan vs State By on 14 July, 2022
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.O.P.No.15909 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.15909 of 2021
E.Ezhilarasan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State by:
Sub-Inspector of Police,
J-13, Tharamani Police Station,
Chennai-600 113
(Crime No.206 of 2018)
2.Inba Maran ... Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code to call for records and quash the First Information Report
in Crime No.206 of 2018 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, J-13 Tharamani
Police Station, Chennai-600 113 as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : M/s.M.Mathan
For R1 : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.N.Nanmaran
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15909 of 2021
ORDER
When the case came up for hearing on earlier occasion 08.07.2022, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was arrayed as Accused for involving in a group clash, which had taken place near Taramani Railway Station Service road, out side the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambethkar Law University.
2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not in Chennai at the relevant time, but his name is mentioned in FIR. He was taking treatment at Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. He had furnished documents pertaining to those contention.
3. At that time, the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that 2nd Respondent was also a student in the college. In the relevant point of time he was the Complainant. Subsequent to the registration of FIR in Cr.No.206 of 2018 the investigation had not proceeded. In the meanwhile, defacto complainant/ 2nd Respondent who was injured in the group clash had finished his Law degree and he is enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, practising as a Lawyer in this very same Court, where his father is also a Lawyer, he was also 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.15909 of 2021 present in Court and requested to give quietus. Considering the well being of the Petitioner herein, who had already completed the Law degree and due to pendency of FIR, it is impossible for him to enroll as an Advocate in the Bar Council. The 2nd Respondent and his father stated that they have no objection in quashing the FIR. At that stage, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that an affidavit shall be obtained from the Petitioner that he will not indulge in similar offence in future.
4. Based on the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Court had directed the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to furnish an affidavit duly notarised. Further, as per the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, offences alleged in the FIR the limitation under Section 460 Cr.P.C. had expired and taken cognizance within 3 years, he seeks to quash FIR.
5. The offences alleged in the FIR, the investigation ought to have been completed and taken cognizance by the Court within three years. Therefore the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to quash the FIR.
6. On consideration of the rival submission of the learned counsel for the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.15909 of 2021 Petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) for the Investigation Officer/1st Respondent, the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant and on perusal of the FIR in Crime No.206 of 2018 on the file of Taramani Police Station, it is found the FIR is registered for the alleged offences under Sections 147 and 323 of I.P.C. Therefore, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for the Petitioner from the date of registration of FIR investigation had not been completed within the period of limitation as per Section 460 of code of Criminal Procedure Code. As the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant has no objection to quash the FIR, this petition is allowed.
7. In the result, this petition is allowed, consequently FIR in Crime No.206 of 2018, of Taramani Police Station is quashed.
14.07.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order jai 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.15909 of 2021 To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, J-13, Tharamani Police Station, Chennai-600 113.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.15909 of 2021 SATHIKUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
jai Crl.O.P.No.15909 of 2021 14.07.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis