Quashed

Antony Samy v. M.Senthil Kumar

Madras HC9 Jun 2015CRL OP/19227/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the lower court's order calling a case file to no cognizance for violating procedural requirements regarding the taking of a sworn statement from the complainant, directing the Magistrate to rectify the defect.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Judicial Magistrate to take the sworn statement of the respondent/complainant and determine if a case is made out before issuing process, to be completed within four weeks.

Antony Samy Vs M.Senthil Kumar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.06.2015

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19227 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Antonysamy ..Petitioner /vs/ M.Senthilkumar, M.S.K.Chit Fund, Athur Private Limited, Athur Town, Salem District. ..Respondent Prayer:

¶6

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in STC No.762 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur and to quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.Sarathchandran for Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondent : No Appearance ---ORDER The accused in S.T.C.No.762 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur is the petitioner.

¶7

2.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate, without taking sworn statement from the respondent/complainant and without applying application of mind, took cognizance of the case and issued of process, which is to be quashed. He has also produced a xerox copy of the certified copy issued by the Court to that effect that sworn statement of the respondent/complainant was not taken and the case was taken up on file.

¶8

4.Though the respondent was represented by his counsel, there was no representation for the respondent.

¶9

5.Considering the limited scope of the case, I am inclined to dispose of the case, even in the absence of the respondent. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is seen from the records that the learned Judicial

¶10

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

¶11

Magistrate, without taking sworn statement of the respondent/complainant, has taken cognizance of the case and issued process, which is against the provisions of law. Hence, this petition is disposed of by directing the learned Judicial Magistrate to take sworn statement of the respondent/complainant and on being satisfied as to whether the case has been made out or not, shall take further steps in issuing process to the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to complete the above exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶12

ari
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate-I,
Athur.
2. -do- thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Salem.
+ 1 cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate SR 27613
rsy(co)
prk22/6
Crl.O.P.No.19227 of 2010
and M.P. No.1 of 2010

¶13

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

Antony Samy v. M.Senthil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony Samy v. M.Senthil Kumar

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

P.Hema Vs R.M.Rajeswaran

S.Santhi Vs R.Chinnappa Chetty

V.Swarnalakshmi Vs R.Senthurpandian

S.P.S.Granites by Its Vs N.C.R.Rathinam

S.Sakthivel Samuthravelu Vs S.Arokiyasamy

M.Rajendra Sah Vs a.Parthsarathy