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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Arunkumar – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector – Respondent
CRL OP(MD)/9866/2020



Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9866 of 2020 and

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 22.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9866 of 2020 and

CRL.M.P.(MD)No.4582 of 2020

1.Arunkumar

2.Andisamy

3.Punugukaruppiah

4.Deivam

... Petitioner/Accused 1 to 4

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police,

Sedappatti Police Station,

Sedappatti,

Madurai District.

(Crime No.1104/2020)

... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2.Udhayakumari,

Village Administrative Officer,

No.69, Chinnakattalai Group,

Peraiyur Taluk

Madurai District.

... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information

Report in Crime No.1104 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent

police and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners.

For Petitioner

: Mr.T.Vadivelan

For R2

: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh

Government Advocate

For R2

: No Appearance

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the

learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first

respondent.

2.The petitioners were negligently spread the Infection of

diseases to the general public and disobeyed the quarantine rule,

the defecto complainant questioned the same. At that time, the

petitioners threatened the defecto complainant with dire

consequence. Hence, Crime No.1104 of 2020 was registered on the file

of respondent police for the offences under Sections 269, 270, 271,

188 and 506(ii) of IPC.

1/2

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9866 of 2020 and

3.I will not fault the respondent for having registered the

impugned First Information Report. But no adverse consequence

ensued. It is seen that the Government has taken a policy decision

not to pursue the cases registered in the wake of breach of lock

down restrictions. In these circumstances, continuance of the

impugned prosecution is not warranted.

4.Therefore, the impugned First Information Report is quashed.

This criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

// True Copy //

/ /2022

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,

a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,

ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct

copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant

concerned.

To:

1.The Inspector of Police,

Sedappatti Police Station,

Sedappatti,

Madurai District.

2.The Village Administrative Officer,

No.69, Chinnakattalai Group,

Peraiyur Taluk,

Madurai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9866 of 2020

22.03.2022

RS(29.03.2022) 2P-4C

2/2

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 Back to top