Dismissed

P.Jasmin Lena Aged 36 Years v. the State by Its

Madras HC29 Nov 2016CRL OP/25810/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking a joint trial of a police report case and a subsequent private complaint. It held that Section 210 Cr.P.C. was inapplicable since the police report was filed before the private complaint. Consequently, the petition for joint trial was deemed devoid of merits. Allowance was denied.

What did the court decide?

The petition requesting a joint trial of C.C.No.500 of 2010 and C.C.No.772 of 2012 was dismissed

P.Jasmin Lena Aged 36 Years Vs the State by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 29.11.2016

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶4

CRL.O.P.No.25810 of 2016

¶5

P.Jasmin Lena .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs
State rep by its
1.The Inspector of Police,
W-3, All Women Police Station,
Tambaram, Chennai-45.
2.Jeromiah
3.Irudhayamary
4.Johnson
5.Jennis
6.Leema Rose
7.Rebacca .. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram
to try both the cases jointly viz., the case filed on Police
Report in C.C.No.500 of 2010 and the Private Complaint filed
by the Petitioner in C.C.No.772 of 2012 and complete the Trial
of both the cases with in a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Premkumar

¶8

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, APP

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This petition has been filed to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram to try both the cases C.C.No.500 of 2010 and C.C.No.772 of 2012 jointly and complete the Trial with in a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶12

On the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2009 and after completing the investigation, filed a final report in C.C.No.500 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram for offences under Sections 326, 452, 498-A and 506 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ [ii] of IPC against Jeromiah, Irudhayamary, Johnson, Jennis,

¶13

Leema Rose and Rebacca. The petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation, as the petitioner was of the opinion, that the police has left out Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.500 of 2010.

¶14

The private complaint lodged by the petitioner was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram as C.C.No.772 of 2012 and there seems to be no progress in the case, whereas, trial in C.C.No.500 of 2010 has proceeded with examination of PW1 to PW4. At that juncture, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 210 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram to club together C.C.No.500 of 2010 and C.C.No.772 of 2012, in which, the learned Magistrate have passed some orders on 18.11.2016, which is indecipherable. Now, the de facto complainant is before this Court, for a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram to try C.C.No.550 of 2010 and C.C.No.772 of 2012 jointly.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 210 Cr.P.C., in support of his plea for a joint trial.

¶16

In the considered opinion of this Court, reliance on Section 210 Cr.P.C. is misplaced. Inasmuch as, Section 210 Cr.P.C. would apply during the course of enquiry or trial in a private complaint, if it comes to the notice of the Court that the police investigation is pending, the Court is required to stay further proceedings in the complaint and await the report from the police. In this case, the police charge sheet has been filed in the year 2010 and only thereafter, the private complaint has been filed in the year 2012. Therefore, the provision of Section 210 Cr.P.C. will have no application.

¶17

In the result, the petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

gya

¶19

¶20

1.The Inspector of Police, W-3, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai-45.

¶21

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

¶22

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

¶23

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶24

+1cc to M/S K.Premkumar, Advocate Sr.70334

¶25

CRL.OP.No.25810 of 2016

¶26

SS(CO)
RVR 29/12/2016

¶27

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

P.Jasmin Lena Aged 36 Years v. the State by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Jasmin Lena Aged 36 Years v. the State 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

Sinduja, F/a 24 Yrs, Vs Manoj Abraham, S/O.Prabakaran

Mr.K.C.Palanisamy Vs the Inspector of Police

T.K.Chandiran Vs Inspector of Police

Dr.v.Lingeswari Vidya, Vs The Commssioner of Police

Mugilan, Aged 32 Years Vs Inspector of Police

T.Jitendra, M/43 Vs v.Gangadharan