Dismissed

K.Ganeshan v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/3966/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal petition seeking quashing of Special Theft Case No.63 of 2013. The Court noted the trial was imminent and directed the police and trial court to expedite proceedings, subsequently dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to cooperate with trial; Police directed to produce witnesses; Trial to be expedited; Criminal Original Petition and connected M.Ps closed.

K.Ganeshan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

K.Ganeshan

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.04.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3966 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

Petitioner

Vs.

1.The state rep by

The Sub Inspector of Police,

¶8

Kadayanallur Police Station,

¶9

Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.A.Gurusamy

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to STC.No.63 of 2013 dated 11.11.2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶16

2.This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in STC.No.63 of 2013 dated 11.11.2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.

¶17

3.When the matter was taken up, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that trial is going to commenced on 23.05.2014 and summons to the witnesses were already been served.

¶18

4.Considering the fact that the petitioner is the sole accused and the petitioner can raise all the defence before the Trial Court and cooperate with the trial and the 1^st respondent Police is directed to produce all the witnesses without fail. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequenty, connected M.Ps.are closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶20

/True copy/

¶21

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

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

¶25

The Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶26

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District.

¶27

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

Nbj SR : 08.05.2014 : 2p/4c

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3966 of 2014

¶30

16.04.2014

¶31

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

K.Ganeshan v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ganeshan v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ganesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Venkatesan Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Gokul Murugesan Vs M.Muthiah

Palanichamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

P.Ponramu Vs Swathi

Periasamy Vs Sivakami