Dismissed

Chandrasekaran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Nov 2013CRL OP(MD)/15046/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of a charge sheet as withdrawn by the petitioner counsel, while ordering dispensation with physical presence of elderly female petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet is deemed withdrawn; dispensation granted from personal appearance for two petitioners.

Chandrasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.11.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15046 of 2013 and M.P.(md).No. 2 of 2013

1.Chandrasekaran

2.Meera

3.Saradha

4.Krishnan ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. (In Cr.No.11 of 2013) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to charge sheet in C.C.No.197 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.T.M.Madasamy For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha

¶15

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.197 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai shall stand dismissed as withdrawn, the learned counsel for the petitioner having made an endorsement to such effect.

¶18

2.However, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners 2 and 3 are women, aged 50 and 70 years respectively and suffer from health problems, this Court is inclined to direct the Court below to dispense with the presence of the petitioners 2 and 3 before it except as and when the same is felt necessary. The petitioners 2 & 3 shall be required to file an affidavit before the trial court, informing their address for service, that they would be represented by their counsel on all hearing dates and that they would not in any stage dispute their identity. Consequently, M.P.(md). No.1 of 2013 is also dismissed. M.P.(md).No.2 of 2013 is ordered.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

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

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

vs To

¶26

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai.

¶27

2.Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tiruchirappalli.

¶28

3.The Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶29

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15046 of 2013 and M.P.(md).No. 2 of 2013 18.11.2013 rg.05.12.2013 2p/5c

¶30

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

Chandrasekaran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekaran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saravanan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

P. Vetrivel Vs the Inspector of Police

Nehru Vs the Inspector of Police

H.Bismi Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Sahul Hameed Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Raja @ Raja Mohamed Vs the Inspector of Police