High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 03 MAD CK 0060

Rajendran, Palanichamy and P. Shanmugasundaram vs The Sub-Inspector of Police

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 March 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.T. Selvam, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal O.P. No. 9915 of 2007 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 305 words

C.T. Selvam, J.—The petitioners seek to quash proceedings in case pending in STC No. 2420 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate I, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District wherein he stands charged for offences u/s 323 IPC.

2.

In the said case, the defacto complainant had informed of injuries suffered by him at the hands of the petitioners on 05.06.2006. The grounds

urged in support of the petition is that the defacto complainant had been admitted in the hospital only on 09.06.2006, that the respondent police

had been in the hospital and received a complaint from him which has been suppressed and that the complaint in the present case was given on

22.08.2006 as a counterblast to the civil suit filed in O.S. No. 256 of 2006 on 28.07.2006 by the wife of the 1st petitioner. It is submitted that

there were certain discrepancies between the accident register maintained by the hospital and in the complaint viz., that in the accident register, it is

informed that the defacto complainant was attacked by reaper wood and hands by known person while in the complaint before the respondent

police it was informed that he was attacked by stick.

3.

I have the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) on the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

4.

It is seen that there is absolutely no material before this Court to accept submissions made of there having been a prior complaint. While so, the

other contentions raised would have to be raised in the course of trial and in the form of defence therein.

5.

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

6.

The observations herein above are merely towards disposal of the petition pending before this Court and shall not in any manner influence the

lower Court.