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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J
Mani – Appellant
Versus
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station, Krishnagiri District. – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Thiruvengadam
For the Respondents:Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Table of Content
1. existence of prima facie evidence against petitioners. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. final decision on the dismissal of the petition. (Para 5)

O R D E R

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent-Police and perused the materials available on record.

4. On a reading of F.I.R and also charge sheet filed by the respondent-Police, statement of witnesses recorded by the respondent- Police under Section 161Cr.P.C., and other materials, it is seen that prima facie allegations and materials are available as against the petitioner to proceed the case further. The grounds taken by the petitioners are nothing but defence which can be agitated only during the course of trial before the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the case in C.C.No.40 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

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