Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. K. Govi Ganesan
  • Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor
Judges
  • G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
Acts
  • Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. K. Govi Ganesan
  • Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor
Judges
  • G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
Acts
  • Section 482 Cr.P.C.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The petitioners, accused numbers 4 and 7, sought to quash the case registered against them for alleged offences under Sections 120(B) and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and various provisions of the Essential Commodities Act along with Fertilizer (Control) and Movement Control Orders. Earlier, accused numbers 1 to 3 in the same case had their proceedings quashed by this Court, and the petitioners claimed to be similarly situated and thus entitled to the same relief.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010 against the petitioners/accused 4 and 7 can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that they stand on the same footing as accused 1 to 3, whose proceedings were earlier quashed by this Court.
  2. Whether the allegations against the petitioners are sufficient to proceed with the trial or require quashing at this stage.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The petitioners are innocent and have not committed the alleged offences.
  • The Magistrate took cognizance without a proper basis against them.
  • The petitioners are similarly situated as accused 1 to 3, whose proceedings were quashed by this Court in earlier petitions.
  • Accordingly, the petitioners prayed for quashing of the proceedings against them.

Respondent's Arguments

  • There are specific allegations against the petitioners attracting the charged offences.
  • The points raised by the petitioners are to be examined during the trial and not at the quashing stage.
  • The petition should therefore be dismissed.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that accused 1 to 3 in the same case had earlier successfully obtained quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010 by this Court. The respondent’s special leave petitions against that order were dismissed by the Supreme Court, thereby affirming the quashing. Given that the petitioners (accused 4 and 7) stand on the same footing as the earlier petitioners, the Court found it appropriate to extend the same relief to them. The Court also observed that the respondent’s objections concerning the sufficiency of allegations are matters to be addressed during trial and not at this stage of quashing. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

Holding and Implications

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010 against the petitioners/accused 4 and 7 are quashed.

The direct effect of this decision is the termination of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in the specified case. No broader precedent was established, as the ruling is grounded on the principle of parity with the earlier quashing granted to accused 1 to 3 and the dismissal of the respondent’s appeals by the Supreme Court.

Show full summary ...

    Subramanian And Another v. State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police .

    Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and Quash the same, in so far as its relates to petitioners/4 & 7 Accused are concerned.

    The Order of the Court was delivered by

    G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.:— This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, having been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 120(B) read with Section 409 of IPC and Section 9 of Essential Commodities Act read with Order 35(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, Section 7(1) a (ii) read with 3(2)(d) of Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 4, 7 and 8(2) and 25(1) of Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 and Clause 3 of Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973 as against the petitioners.

    2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai has taken cognizance in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 120(B) read with Section 409 of IPC and Section 9 of Essential Commodities Act read with Order 35(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, Section 7(1) a (ii) read with 3(2)(d) of Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 4, 7 and 8(2) and 25(1) of Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 and Clause 3 of Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973 as against the petitioners and others.

    3. He further submitted that the proceedings against the accused A1 to A3, who are the main accused in this case already approached this Court in Crl.O.P. Nos. 27503 & 27504 of 2010, wherein this Court by order dated 05.09.2014 quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010 in respect of them. He further submitted that the petitioners are also standing in the same footing and as such he prayed for allowing this quash petition.

    4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 120(B) read with Section 409 of IPC and Section 9 of Essential Commodities Act read with Order 35(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, Section 7(1) a (ii) read with 3(2)(d) of Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 4, 7 and 8(2) and 25(1) of Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 and Clause 3 of Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973. Therefore all the points raised by the petitioners have to considered only during the trial. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this petition.

    5. It is seen that the accused A1 to A3 in the very same case had already approached this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010, which was allowed in respect of them, as against which the respondent has filed special leave petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court inSLP. Nos. 10465 & 10466 of 2014, which were dismissed by order dated 07.07.2017 as such the petitioners who are also standing in the same footing shall be extended the same benefit.

    6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 10731 of 2010 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai as against the petitioners is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Subramanian And Another v. State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police .
    (Apr 10, 2019)