Allowed

K.v.Muthusamy v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC20 Nov 2015CRL RC/1198/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing a plea for recall of a non-bailable warrant. The High Court quashed the single-judge order and permitted the petitioner to file a fresh petition for recall.

What did the court decide?

The order passed in C.C.No.82 of 2008 dated 28.10.2015 was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to file a fresh petition u/s.70(2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the non-bailable warrant.

K.v.Muthusamy Vs the State Rep. by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 20.11.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1198 of 2015

¶6

K.V.Muthusamy
S/o.Velappa Gounder .. Petitioner
vs.
The State represented by its
Inspector of Police,
Sathyamangalam Police Station,
Erode District.
Crime No.802 of 2003 .. Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sathyamangalam, passed in C.C.No.82 of 2008 on 28.10.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj,
Government Advocate [Crl.side]
*****
O R D E R

¶7

This revision is preferred against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, passed in C.C.No.82 of 2008 on 28.10.2015.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a petition u/s.70(2) Cr.P.C. has been moved by petitioner towards recall of non-bailable warrant issued against him by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, on 15.09.2015. Such petition stands dismissed for the sole reason that petitioner had not appeared before the Court below in person whilst moving such petition. Learned counsel contends that the matter has been pending trial from 2008, that the petitioner regularly has been appearing before the Court below, that his absence was not willful and the same was occasioned owing to his having taken ill on the particular date. Submitting as above, learned counsel prays that the order under challenge may be set aside.

¶9

Heard learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] on the above submissions.

¶10

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

¶11

Considering the rival submissions, this Court allows this revision. The order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, passed in C.C.No.82 of 2008 on 28.10.2015, is set aside. Petitioner shall now be permitted to move afresh a petition u/s.70(2) Cr.P.C. towards recall of non-bailable warrant issued against him. The same shall be considered and disposed of by the Court below on the same day and in accordance with law.

¶12

¶13

-s/dAssistant Registrar(J)

¶14

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Sathyamangalam
2. The Inspector of Police,
Sathyamangalam Police Station,
Erode District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to M/s.N.Manokaran, Advocate SR 63141
ad(co)
prk11/12
Crl.R.C.No.1198 of 2015

¶15

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

K.v.Muthusamy v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Muthusamy v. the State Rep. by Its

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

K.Sri Ramulu Chetty Vs Tr.Prabhkaran

A.v.Anantha Babu Vs Samundeshwari

K.R.Sathiskumar Vs C.K.Shari

Mukesh Vs Koushalya

H.M. Abdul Jaleel Vs Ayyappan

H.Farook Maricar Vs the Inspector of Police