V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of House Officer, Kodumudi Police Station, Erode – Respondent
ORDER :
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.19 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi and quash the same.
2. The petitioners submit that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has lodged a complaint against them on 26.10.2012 around 5.15 p.m., alleging that on 23.10.2012 around 10.30 p.m., the petitioners in an inebriated condition committed acts of mischief and broke the window of the defacto complainant's house. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered by the 1st respondent police under Sections 427, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC. Further, the petitioners submit that the complaint lodged against them lacks bonafide and it is highly mischievous. The petitioners were summoned by Court on 10.07.2013 and they have denied the incident. Only thereafter, they came to know that the magistrate in addition to the provisions under which the police had launched a Criminal Complaint had included Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1998. None of the allegations made against the petitioners either on the complaint or on the prima facie evidence adduced before it warrant framing of charge under Ac
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Others] reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609
State of Karnataka v. Pastor P.Raju (2006) 6 SCC 728
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation] reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.