Allowed

V.Vijayaragavan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Mar 2015CRL RC/1303/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. considering that charges against a co-accused (A1) were quashed for delay and latches. The Court held that this benefit must extend to the petitioner (A2) as well. The petitioner was subsequently discharged from the case.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was allowed; the petitioner/A2 was discharged from Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2012.

V.Vijayaragavan Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.03.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1303 of 2014

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

V.Vijayaragavan S/o.Vankatapathy ...Petitioner/Accused – 2 vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Puducherry. ...Respondent/Complainant

¶8

Criminal Revision filed under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. praying to call for records and set aside charges framed in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of learned Special Judge, Puducherry.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondent : Mr.Thangavel,
Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry)
*****
O R D E R

¶10

This revision is filed seeking quash of proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of learned Special Judge, Puducherry.

¶11

The petitioner is arrayed as A2 in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of learned Special Judge, Puducherry. He along with A1 was prosecuted for offences under sections 7, 13(1)(a) & (b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor [Pondicherry].

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in

¶14

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

¶15

respect of A1, the charge sheet filed in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2012 was quashed by this Court under orders in Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2013 dated 07.11.2014 on the ground of delay and latches and therefore, the same benefit may be given to the petitioner, who is arrayed as A2.

¶16

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) filed a detailed counter affidavit and reiterated the allegations stated therein. He also submitted that though the charge against A1 was quashed under orders in Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2013 dated 07.11.2014, the same cannot be extended to the petitioner as the petitioner is the Motor Vehicle Inspector during the relevant period.

¶17

I am unable to accept the contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor [Pondicherry]. Under orders in Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2013 dated 07.11.2014, I quashed the charge against the first accused on the ground of delay and latches and the petitioner, being the second accused, is also entitled to have the same benefit of the order.

¶18

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed. As a consequence, the petitioner/A2 is discharged from the case in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of learned Special Judge, Puducherry. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar gm 1 The Special Judge, Puducherry. 2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Puducherry. 3. The Public prosecutor (Pondicherry) High Court, Madras-104. Crl.R.C.No.1303 of 2014 CO-RK ths : 20.03.2015

¶19

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

V.Vijayaragavan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vijayaragavan 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

M.M.Rangasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Guruswamy Vs the Inspector of Police

S.v.Sriramalu Vs the Inspector of Police

J.Seenivasan@ Seenu Vs State Rep by

P.Subramaniam Vs State Rep by

Ananth Vs the Inspector of Police