Dismissed

A.Jainla v. State Rep. by

Madras HC8 Jun 2015CRL OP/9941/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitions to quash criminal proceedings were dismissed as withdrawn. The court directed elders of 63 years accused to appear only for initial stages (Sections 207 and 313 Cr.P.C.) but allowed dispensation with presence for subsequent proceedings if the trial court grants permission.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to raise points before trial court; directions regarding appearance of first petitioner.

A.Jainla Vs State Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN 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.9941 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶6

1.A.Jainla 2.J.Jalai ..Petitioners/Accused 1&2

¶7

Vs State Rep. By B-1, Siva Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram. (Crime No.276 of 2012) ..Respondent/Complainant

¶8

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.169 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate -I, Kancheepuram and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.B.R.Shankaralingam

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.169 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Kancheepuram.

¶13

Since this Court was not inclined to admit this Criminal Original Petitions, 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 1^st petitioner is aged about 63 years and therefore, his presence may be dispensed with.

¶14

Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court directs the 1^st petitioner to appear before the trial Court for receiving the final report under Section 207 Cr.P.C., for answering the charge, for answering the question under Section 313 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.P.C. and on the date of judgment. For the other

¶15

hearing, the 1^st petitioner shall file a petition before the trial Court that his counsel will cross examine the witnesses without insisting for his presence and that he will not dispute the identity. On such petition is being filed, the trial Court is directed to liberally consider the same and dispense with his presence for the other hearings. The trial Court is directed to conduct the trial in C.C.No.169 of 2014 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶16

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, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed and M.P.No.2 of 2015 is disposed of with the above direction.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsm
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
B-1, Siva Kanchi Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Judicial Magistrate -I,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶18

1 cc to Mr.B.R.Shankaralingam, Advocate Sr.27628

¶19

Crl.OP No.9941 of 2015 KK(CO) Eu 19.06.15

¶20

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

A.Jainla v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Jainla v. State Rep. by

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

K.M.Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police

Pon Murugesan Vs the State Rep. by Its

M.Chandrasekar Reddy Vs the Commissioner of Police