Disposed

Periyasamy, M/Aged About 48YRS v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC28 Nov 2016CRL OP/25745/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a challan and released petitioners on bail with strict conditions to attend critical stages of the trial, including receiving charges and supplying counsel to cross-examine witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Accused released on bail with two sureties on bond of Rs.10,000/- each, subject to conditions of presence for charge discussion and supply of counsel for cross-examination.

Periyasamy, M/Aged About 48YRS Vs the State Rep. by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.11.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P. No. 25745 of 2016 and Crl.M.P. Nos.12581 & 12582 of 2016

¶6

1 Periyasamy 2 Santhakumari 3 Muruganantham Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

1 The State represented by
the Inspector of Police
Thalaivasal Police Station
Salem District

¶9

2 Anusuya Respondent

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to call for the records pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Attur, Salem District in C.C. No.169 of 2016 and quash the same.

¶11

For petitioners Mr. E. Kannadasan For R1 Mr. C. Emalias

¶12

Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Attur, Salem District in C.C. No.169 of 2016 and quash the same.

¶15

2 On the complaint lodged by one Santhakumari, the second petitioner herein, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.308 of 2016 on 01.09.2016 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 354 and 506(i) IPC against Kanagarathinam and Anusuya, the second respondent herein. Likewise, on the complaint given by Anusuya, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.309 of 2016 against Periyasamy, Santhakumari and Muruganantham under Sections, 294(b), 323, 354 and 506(i) IPC. After completing the investigation in Cr. No.309 of 2016, the first respondent police filed the final

¶16

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

¶17

report in C.C. No.169 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Attur against Periasamy, Santhakumari and Muruganantham for the aforesaid offences, challenging which, the accused are before this Court.

¶18

3 Mr. Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint given by Santhakumari, the second petitioner herein, is at the earlier point of time and the case has been registered as Cr. No.308 of 2016, whereas, the police have not yet completed the investigation in the said case.

¶19

4 Today, Mr. S. Subramaniam, Special Sub Inspector, Thalaivasal P.S. is present before this Court.

¶20

5 On instructions, Mr. C. Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the police have completed the investigation in Cr. Nos.308 and 309 of 2016 and have filed two final reports before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Attur on 28.09.2016, whereas, the said Magistrate has taken on file, only the case in Cr. No.309 of 2016 and has numbered it as C.C. No.169 of 2016 and he has not passed any orders in the final report in Cr. No.308 of 2016.

¶21

6 Under such circumstances, when there is a case and counter, it is needless to state that the cases should be tried simultaneously.

¶22

7 In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Connected Crl. M.Ps. are closed.

¶23

8 Mr. Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the presence of Periyasamy (A1) and Santhakumari (A2) before the Trial Court may be dispensed with as both of them are teachers.

¶24

9 Acceding to the submission made by Mr. Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Periyasamy (A1) and Santhakumari (A2) are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on their surrender, they shall be released on bail under Section 436, Cr.P.C. on the same day on they executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties,who can be common sureties also. Thereafter, their presence before the Trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that, they shall be present for receiving the charge sheet, for answering the charge, at the time of questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. They shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the Trial Court that they will not dispute their identity and that the counsel named by them in

¶25

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

¶26

the affidavit will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined-in-chief, as held by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 288]. If they adopt any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist upon their presence and remand them to custody, as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shambhu Nath Singh [JT 2001 (4) SC 319]. If, thereafter, they abscond, the trial Court shall direct registration of an FIR against them u/s 229-A IPC.

¶27

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1 The Inspector of Police
Thalaivasal Police Station
Salem District
2 The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II
Attur
Salem District
3 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
+1cc to Mr.E. Kannadasen, Advocate, S.R.No.69566
rp(CO)
md(16/12/2016)
Crl.O.P. No. 25745 of 2016

¶28

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

Periyasamy, M/Aged About 48YRS v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyasamy, M/Aged About 48YRS v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Thiagarajan Vs the Commissioner of Police

Ramesh, M/44 Vs Raghunathan

The Deputy Superintendent of Vs K.Vediyappan

D.Vimalanathan Vs The District Collector

Tmt.S.Manjari Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

S.Pushpanathan, Vs the Commissioner of Police