Disposed

Guru @ Kumaraguru v. State by

Madras HC12 Jul 2016CRL OP/12955/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an accused in a pending criminal trial, sought expedited disposal via a criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC. The Court noted absconding accused protracting the trial. It directed registration of a case for absconding under Section 229(A) IPC and remand upon production.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner dismissed; direction to register case under Section 229(A) IPC; non-bailable warrants to be issued upon production.

Guru @ Kumaraguru Vs State by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 12.07.2016 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶4

Crl.OP.No.12955 of 2016

¶5

Guru @ Kumara Guru ... Petitioner
Vs
State by
The Inspector of Police,
M-5, Ennore Police Station,
Ennore, Chennai.
(Crime No.66 of 2007) ... Respondent
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to issue direction to the learned
Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, to conduct the case pending in
SC.No.217 of 2012 in a speedy manner and decide the same as per
the procedure established by law.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Paarthiban
For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER

¶6

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, to conduct the case pending in SC.No.217 of 2012 in a speedy manner and to decide the same as per the procedure established by law.

¶7

This petitioner viz., Guru @ Kumaraguru is the accused in S.C.No.217 of 2012, which is pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ponneri, and he filed the present petition for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶8

This Court called for the report from the trial Court and a report dated 02.07.2016 has been received, which shows that one or the other accused have been deliberately absconding, in order to protract the trial. Ultimately, the learned Judge stated that Non-Bailable Warrants are pending as against A1, A2 and A4 and A3 alone are attending the Court.

¶9

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

¶10

Under such circumstances, this Court directs the respondent police to register a case under Section 229 (A) IPC against all the absconding accused and arrest them independently for their abscondance. The trial Court shall ensure that the respondent police registers a case under Section 229 (A) IPC and when the accused are produced, they may be remanded to custody as the offence u/s 229 A IPC is cognisable and non-bailable.

¶11

With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

¶12

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sms
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Ponneri.
2.The Inspector of Police,
M-5, Ennore Police Station,
Ennore, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
+1 CC to Mr.V.Paarthiban , Advocate Sr.No.39195
Crl.OP.No.12955 of 2016
SVI(CO)
KP(29.07.2016)

¶13

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

Guru @ Kumaraguru v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guru @ Kumaraguru v. State 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

Krishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police

S. Bhavani, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Subha Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.Velusamy Vs K.v.Raghupathy

S.Kathiresan Vs Additional Deputy Commercial

S.Kathiresan Vs Additional Deputy Commercial