Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J
D.Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of complaint and procedural history. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner raises limitation bar and lack of offense. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. section 468 cr.p.c. bars cognizance after delay. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. ingredients of section 294 ipc not met. (Para 7) |
| 5. empty threats insufficient for section 506 ipc. (Para 8) |
| 6. quashing justified due to abuse of process. (Para 9) |
| 7. specific offenses not sustained; petition allowed. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records in CC.No.280 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Poonamalle, Thiruvallur District and quash the same.
2.The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent alleging that on 11.12.2017 at about 22.50 hrs, while the 2nd respondent was proceeding in his motor cycle, the petitioner pushed him down and threatened him with dire consequences, therefore, he sustained injuries and lodged a complaint and on receipt of the complaint, the 1st respondent police registered FIR in Crime No.1866 of 2017 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506 Part I of IPC. After completion of investigation, the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court in C.C.No.280 of 2023.
3. The learned cou
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
