SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Mad) 1034

A.RAMAMURTHI
Chinnasamy – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:M. Balasubramanian, N. R. Elango, Advocates.

Judgment :-

The Order of the Court is as follows:

Petitioner/Accused in CC 215 of 1998 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings pending against him.

2. The case in brief is as follows:

One Periampillai gave a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he had abused him by calling his caste name. On the said complaint, the respondent-Police registered a case on Crime No. 12/95 under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter called as S.C. and S.T. Act) and the case was investigated by the Police and ultimately, the case was referred. He sent petitions to higher officials for proper investigation and dropping of the case. With the result, the respondent-Police after investigation has not only referred the case but also sent intimation to the petitioner stating that the case had been referred. While so, it seems that the police have re-opened the case on the pretext of making further investigation and found out materials to file a charge-sheet against him for an offence under Sectio













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top