Partly allowed

Kavitha v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Jan 2014CRL RC(MD)/865/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a criminal revision against the dismissal of a discharge petition. While the petitioners arguments regarding the need for expeditious trial were considered, the revision itself was dismissed with a direction to dispose of the trial case within three months.

What did the court decide?

Revised dismissed; Trial court directed to dispose case within three months.

Kavitha Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.01.2014

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶5

Crl.RC(MD)No.865 of 2013

¶6

Kavitha

¶7

...Petitioner/Petitioner/A5 Vs.

¶8

State through the The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Trichy

¶9

In Crime No.26 of 2013

¶10

...Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant

¶11

Prayer:- This Criminal Revision filed to call for the records relating to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.148 of 2013 dated 10.12.2013 in Spl.S.C.No.8of 2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy and set aside the same by allowing this revision and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For R1 : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The Criminal Revision has been filed against the dismissal of discharge petition filed by the petitioner who is arrayed as the fifth accused before the trial court. It is now brought to the notice of this court that charge sheet has been filed and trial has also commenced.

¶15

I tis also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that three material witnesses have been examined and remaining witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, he would request that the trial court may be directed to dispose of the case expeditiously on the ground that the petitioner, who is in prison, is unable to offer sureties to come out on bail.

¶16

Considering the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this revision is dismissed with the direction to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichirappalli to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected M.P.s are closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶19

/True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

To,

¶22

1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy

¶23

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

¶24

+1CC to M/s.B.Jameel Arasu, Advocate in SR.No.3715

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.RC(MD)No.865 of 2013 21.01.2014

¶27

ses

¶28

PBK 24/01/2014 1P/4C

Kavitha v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavitha v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Inspector of Police Vs P.Rajeshkumar

Raju Vs Palanisamy

A.M. Malairajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Moorthy Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Anisha Kanam Vs Vimal Sheriff

Rajalakshni Vs Kuganpandian