Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3219 (MAD)

S. Veeraman v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

2014-09-10

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent/de-facto complainant, a case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID (FE) Act, 1997 in Crime No.34 of 2011. The said F.I.R is being challenged by the fifth accused is before this Court. 2. When the matter is called today, both the petitioner as well as the second respondent are present before this Court and the second respondent categorically stated that there is no connection between the petitioner and the offences alleged in the F.I.R. In view of that, he does not want to press the case against the petitioner/A5. His statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above, the second respondent is also filed a memo. Hence, further investigation is against the petitioner/A5 is unnecessary. 4. Accordingly, the Crime No.34 of 2011 pending on the file of the first respondent in respect of the petitioner/A5 alone is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.