Partly allowed

Mr.Sunil D.Mathur v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC26 Aug 2016CRL OP/4005/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of criminal original petitions seeking to quash trial proceedings. Recalling that the summons cases involve minor penalties and that the trial court issued a warrant despite knowledge of the petitioner's outstation office, the court recalled the non-bailable warrant and directed appearance by counsel.

What did the court decide?

Non-bailable warrant recalled; parties directed to appear before trial court via counsel.

Mr.Sunil D.Mathur Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 26.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.Nos.4005 & 4006 of 2016

¶6

Sunil D. Mathur .. Petitioner/Accused
Vs
State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by Mrs.M. Sasikala
Assistant Inspector of Labour
21st Circle
Chennai-600 035. ..Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C praying to call for the records relating to
C.C.Nos.4637 of 2015 and 4638 of 2015 pending on the file of
the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.S. Raman, Sr.Counsel
for Mr.P.Giridharan
For Respondent : Mr.C. Emalias
Addl. Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER

¶7

The petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to C.C.Nos.4637 of 2015 and 4638 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. 2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in C.C.Nos.4637 of 2015 and 4638 of 2015 before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for offences under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 on the complaint launched by the respondent herein challenging which the petitioner is before this court.

¶8

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

¶9

Though several grounds were raised in the quash application, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court had issued a non-bailable warrant even at the first instance when summons were not served on the petitioner who has his office in Mumbai. It is seen that for the offence under section 21 of the Maternity Benefits Act, the petitioner can be sentenced to imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) or with both. As regards the offence under the Minimum Wages Act, under section 22A, the maximum penalty is fine, which may extend to Rs.500/- (five hundred rupees only). Both the cases are summons cases.

¶10

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the summons issued by the court were handed over at the Chennai office of the petitioner, though the show cause notice issued by the respondent shows that they were aware that the petitioner is the Managing Director and CEO and has his office in Mumbai.

¶11

Under normal circumstances, when warrant is issued by the trial Court, this court will be loath to interfere. But, in this case, taking into consideration the fact that the respondent was aware that the office of the petitioner is in Mumbai and that apart the maximum punishments prescribed is as aforesaid. This court directs the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner in the above cases be recalled. However, the petitioner is directed to enter appearance via special vakalat under section 205 Cr.P.C. and take part in the proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner shall be present on all dates and cross examine the witnesses as and when they are examined in chief as held by the Supreme Court in Vinodh Kumar vs State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220. Boycott of courts shall be no reason for the non appearance of the counsel before the trial court. During questioning, if the petitioner pleads guilty, the trial Court may accept the plea of guilty through the advocate and pass orders with

¶12

regard to the sentence in accordance with law. If the petitioner decides to contest the case, his presence before the trial court on the date of judgment cannot be dispensed with.

¶13

With the above directions, the petitions are ordered accordingly. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶14

-s/d-

¶15

Assistant Registrar

¶16

True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

1.The II Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore

¶20

2.The Assistant Inspector of Labour

¶21

21st Circle, Chennai-600 035.

¶22

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶23

+2 cc to M/s.P.Giridharan Advocate sr 48718 & 48717

¶24

CRL.OP.Nos.4005 & 4006 of 2016
aa07/09/2016

¶25

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

Mr.Sunil D.Mathur v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Sunil D.Mathur v. State of Tamil Nadu 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

Madhan Mohan Vs Sangeetha

K.Palaniswami, (Aged About 77 Vs M/S.Yoshiaki Chemicals Co.

S. Ramesh Vs Thiru Rajinikanth

M.R.Bharath Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.M.Elavarasan, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

Ravi Pachamuthu, Age 48 Years, Vs M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd., Rep.