Crl.OP dispossession to transfer criminal case from Namakkal to Madurai based on petitioner's residence was dismissed. Ecourts directed trial Court to fix evidence dates with police escort and conduct trial within six months.
Trial Court directed to fix evidence date with police escort; case to be concluded within six months; connected petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.OP No.5360 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 Yogavathi .. Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs 1.R.Senthilkumar 2.Saroja 3.Prema ...Respondents 1 to 3/A1 to 3 4.State rep by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Namakkal, Namakkal District. Cr.No.1 of 2012 ..4th Respondent/Complainant Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to withdraw the C.C.No.3 of 2013 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal and transfer the same to the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Chinnasamy For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.A.Mariappan For R4 : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl.Public Prosecutor ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel for the accused.
complaint before the respondent police, Tallakulam and the said complaint was transferred to the file of the Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Namakkal for want of jurisdiction. The All Women Police Station, Namakkal registered a case in Cr.No.1 of 2012 and after completing the investigation has filed Final Report in C.C.No.3 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Namakkal for offences under Sections 498(A), 495, 109 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against R.Senthil Kumar [A1], Saroja [A2] and Prema [A3]. The defacto complainant has now approached this Court for transferring this case to Madurai on the ground that she is living in Madurai and it will be difficult for her to come to Namakkal to give evidence.
With the above observation, this petition is dismissed. The trial Court shall expeditiously conduct the trial and complete the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
gms
To
1.Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Namakkal.
2. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Namakkal, Namakkal District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.V.Chinnasamy, Advocate Sr.No.46399/15.
Crl.OP No.5360 of 2014
vgi(co)
pmk.21.9.2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal case can be transferred from one Court to another on the ground that the complainant resides elsewhere.
Whether the pendency of matrimonial proceedings in a different district justifies transferring a criminal case.
What directions the trial Court should issue regarding security and escort for the petitioner's evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶13
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab [2015(1) Scale 542]
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shambhu Nath SinghReferred¶13
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shambhu Nath Singh [JT 2001 (4) SC 319] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yogavathi
R.Senthilkumar
Saroja
Prema
State rep by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Namakkal
P.N.PRAKASH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
