S.Naveen Vishnu vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 September, 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 12.09.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

CRL.O.P(MD)No.13317 of 2016
and
CRL MP(MD)Nos.6070 6225 of 2016, 2976 of 2017

1.S.Naveen Vishnu
2.N.Selvakumar
3.A.Balasubramani
4.R.Devarajan
5.S.Sivasankaran …Petitioners/Accused 1-5

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police,
Palani Town Police Station,
Dindigul District. …1st Respondent/Complainant

2.Baskaran ..2nd Respondent /De-facto Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime
No.721 of 2015 on the file of Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police
Station, Dindigul quash the same.

!For Petitioners : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Senior Counsel
for C.Jeganathan
^For R1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan
Government Advocate(Crl.Side).
For R2 : Mr.Gandhi

:ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned
FIR in Crime No.721 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Palani
Town Police Station, Dindigul.

2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and
the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the 1st
respondent and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3.The 2nd respondent, namely, the de-facto complainant lodged a
complaint as against the petitioners who are accused numbers 1 to 5. The
case was registered in Cr.No.721 of 2015 for the offences punishable under
Section 406 IPC. It is stated that the petitioners have earlier filed
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2266 of 2016 and this Court permitted the petitioners to
withdraw the said Criminal Original Petition. The order of this Court reads
as follows:

?When this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report
registered in Crime No.721 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court
to withdraw this Criminal Original Petition and he has also made an
endorsement to that effect.

2.In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.?

4.Having regard to the fact that withdrawal of the earlier petition was
only on the ground that this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR, the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners himself admitted that the order of
this Court stands in the way of maintaining the second application for
quashing the same FIR.

5.The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 673 in the case of DSP, SB CID,
Chennai Vs K.V.Rajendran and Others and he fairly conceded that the judgment
is not applicable to this case of nature, where the withdrawal of Crl.O.P
earlier is not simpliciter and it was due to the opinion expressed by this
Court, not to entertain the quash petition earlier. Hence this Court accepts
the position that 2nd application for quashing the FIR after withdrawing the
earlier petition for the same relief is not maintainable, unless there is a
change of circumstances or any other ground, which is not available to the
petitioner earlier. In that view of the matter this Criminal Original
Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.

To

The Inspector of Police,
Palani Town Police Station,
Dindigul District.

.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *