Dismissed

Pon Murugesan v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC8 Jun 2015CRL OP/9501/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed to quash criminal proceedings, as the petition was withdrawn by consent with liberty to litigate before the trial court directives were issued regarding female petitioner attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; directions issued to trial court regarding dispensation of female petitioners' presence during examination of witnesses and other stages.

Pon Murugesan Vs the State Rep. by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

yIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 08.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP No.9501 of 2015

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

1.Pon Murugesan
2.Oba @ Ramachandiran
3.Thamizharasan
4.Ramu
5.Janifa
6.Parvathy .. Petitioners
Vs
1.The State Rep. By its
Inspector of Police,
C-2.Sunguvarchathiram Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
2.Rangasamy .. Respondents
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.11 of 2014 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Arul For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

¶11

Since this Court was not inclined to admit this Criminal Original Petition, permission has been sought for by the petitioners to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. Permission is granted. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the 5^th and 6^th petitioners being ladies their presence may be dispensed with.

¶12

Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court directs the 5^th and 6^th petitioners to appear before the trial Court for receiving the final report under Section 207 Cr.P.C., for answering the charge, for answering the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the date of judgment.

¶13

For the other hearings, the 5^th and 6^th 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 the identity. On such petition is being filed, the trial Court is directed to liberally consider the same and dispense with their presence for the other hearings. The trial Court is directed to conduct the trial in C.C.No.11 of 2014 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the points before the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
vsm
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
C-2.Sunguvarchathiram Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Sriperumbudur.
3. do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Kancheepuram
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.T.Arul, Advocate, Sr. 27693
Crl.OP No.9501 of 2015
KK (CO)
kk 22/6

¶16

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

Pon Murugesan v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pon Murugesan v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

K.M.Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Jainla Vs State Rep. by

M.Chandrasekar Reddy Vs the Commissioner of Police