Selvam Vs. State rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Viruthunagar and Another

Selvam vs State rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Viruthunagar and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Mar 11, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1192112

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1192112
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: P.N. Prakash
Decided On: Mar 11, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4317 of 2016
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Selvam

Respondent

State rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Viruthunagar and Another

Excerpt

(prayer: criminal original petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c., praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in c.c.no. 163 of 2015 pending before the judicial magistrate no. ii, virudhunagar in crime no. 38 of 2013 dated 06.02.2013 on the file of the respondent no. 1 for the alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) i.p.c and section 4 of tnpwh act and quash the same as illegal in so for as petitioners are concerned. 1. this petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in c.c.no. 163 of 2015 pending before the judicial magistrate no. ii, virudhunagar in crime no. 38 of 2013 dated 06.02.2013 on the file of the respondent no. 1 for the alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) i.p.c and section 4 of tnpwh act and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for the state. 3. on reading of the charge sheet, it is seen that an incident is said to have occurred on 25.09.2012 around 08.30 in the night. learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the defato complainant's husband has given a totally different version in the connected case as if the incident had taken place on 26.09.2012, 4. in the considered opinion of this court, the statement made by the defacto complainant's husband cannot be looked into at the stage of quash proceedings and it is open to the petitioner to raise all these issues before the trial court. with the above observation, this criminal original petition is dismissed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge Sheet in C.C.No. 163 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar in Crime No. 38 of 2013 dated 06.02.2013 on the file of the respondent No. 1 for the alleged Offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(B) and 506(ii) I.P.C and Section 4 of TNPWH Act and quash the same as illegal in so for as petitioners are concerned.

1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the charge Sheet in C.C.No. 163 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar in Crime No. 38 of 2013 dated 06.02.2013 on the file of the respondent No. 1 for the alleged Offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(B) and 506(ii) I.P.C and Section 4 of TNPWH Act and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.

3. On reading of the charge sheet, it is seen that an incident is said to have occurred on 25.09.2012 around 08.30 in the night. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the defato complainant's husband has given a totally different version in the connected case as if the incident had taken place on 26.09.2012,

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the statement made by the defacto complainant's husband cannot be looked into at the stage of quash proceedings and it is open to the petitioner to raise all these issues before the Trial Court.

With the above observation, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Selvam vs State rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Viruthuna... Same Subject Education Same Judge P.N. Prakash