Partly allowed

K.M.Ramesh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Jun 2015CRL OP/32171/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings as withdrawn by petitioners. It granted liberty to raise issues in trial court but directed the petitioners to appear for specific stages including document collection and examination under Sections 207 and 313 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to raise issues in trial court; directions issued for petitioner's appearance at specific stages.

K.M.Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 10.06.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.OP.No.32171 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶7

1.K.M.Ramesh

¶8

2.Rajeswari @ Rajarajeswari ... Petitioners Vs

¶9

1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team XVIII, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006.

¶10

2.R.Nagaraj

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in CC.No.311 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Kancheepuram District and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel foreseeable M/s.G.V.Sridharan For Respondents :Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed to call for the records in CC.No.311 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Kancheepuram District and quash the same.

¶16

¶17

2.When this case was posted for hearing on 08.06.2015, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that four witnesses have been examined in CC.No.311 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Kancheepuram District and this Court recorded his submission. At that juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and permission was granted. Thereafter, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented that he had mistakenly made such a representation and no witness has been examined before the trial Court. Therefore, this case is posted today under the caption “For being spoken to”.

¶18

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent and perused the material placed on record.

¶19

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that permission may be granted for the petitioners to withdraw the quash petition to raise all the points before the trial Court and also for dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶20

¶21

5.In view of the endorsement made, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the issues before the trial Court.

¶22

6.As regards the request for dispensing with the personal appearance as the 1^st petitioner is 64 years old, this Court directs the petitioners to appear before the trial Court for collecting the papers under Section 207 CrPC, for answering the charge, for answering questions under Section 313 CrPC and on the day of Judgment. For the other hearings, the petitioners shall file a petition before the trial Court that their counsel will cross examine the witnesses without insisting for their presence and that they will not dispute their identity. On such petition being filed, the trial Court is directed to liberally consider the same. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶23

10.06.2015

¶24

mps To

¶25

1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team XVIII, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006.

¶26

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.N.PRAKASH,J,

mps

Crl.OP.No.32171 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶31

10.06.2015

K.M.Ramesh v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Ramesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanalakshmi Vs

R.Subramani Vs the Inspector of Police

M.H.Shahul Hameed Vs the State Rep. by

A.Jainla Vs State Rep. by

Pon Murugesan Vs the State Rep. by Its

M.Chandrasekar Reddy Vs the Commissioner of Police