Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J
Aasik Mohamed – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town West Police Station, Dindigul District – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2795 of 2022|Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2100 of 2022|Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2102 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.Venkatesh
For the Respondents: R.M.Anbunithi
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings based on the principle of parity, as the facts of the case were identical to previously decided cases covering the same legal ground.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Parity of facts - Where the facts of the present case are identical to previously decided matters by the same Court, the benefit of those precedents is extended to the petitioners to quash the proceedings. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2018 should be quashed based on the parity of facts with previous judicial precedents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of quashing petition under section 482 crpc. (Para 1) |
| 2. application of judicial precedents based on similarity of facts (parity). (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magisterate No.1, Dindigul.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the facts of the case are exactly similar to the case covered in the decision reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [ Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District ] dated 20.09.2018 and in the case of Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and other in batch of cases in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the facts of the case are similar to the facts covered under the Judgment referred above.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
5. Perused the materials on record
6.The facts of this case is similar to the facts covered by the Judgment of this Court reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [ Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District ] dated 20.09.2018 and in case of Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and other in batch of cases in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magisterate No.1, Dindigul, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner alone and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
