Allowed

Murugesan v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC7 Sept 2016CRL OP/7091/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order acquitting the petitioner of all POTA charges. Since the POTA charges were final upon acquittal and only a Section 120-B IPC charge remained, the impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.01.2016 was quashed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Murugesan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE NONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶5

Crl.OP No.7091 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.3710 of 2016 Murugesan ... Petitioner /Accused Vs State,rep.by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Dharmapuri .. Respondent /Complainant Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in order dated 20.01.2016 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003, on the file of Special court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, and set aside the same as illegal.

¶6

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent :Mr.R.Rajarathinam,A.P.P.

¶7

ORDER

¶8

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 20.01.2016, passed in Special Calendar Case No.5 of 2003, by the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, Chennai and quash the same.

¶9

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as second accused in Special Calendar Case No.5 of 2003. During pendency of the same, the petitioner has been acquitted from all charges framed under POTA, by way of passing the impugned order. However, in the impugned order it is specifically mentioned that a charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner is subsisting. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been

¶10

filed for getting the relief sought therein.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has sparingly contended that even though the concerned Magistrate has acquitted the petitioner from all charges framed under the POTA, has erroneously retained the petitioner in Special Calendar Case No.5 of 2003, under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. No other charges under any Sections of law are subsisting against the petitioner and therefore, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

¶12

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded the impugned order. Further, he has fairly admitted that no revision has been filed against the impugned order. Therefore, it is quite clear that the impugned order in respect of acquittal of the petitioner from charges framed under POTA has become final.

¶13

The only point that has now winched to the fore in the present petition is as to whether the alleged charge pending against the petitioner under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is subsisting?

¶14

As rightly pointed out on the side of the petitioner, except the charge under Section 120-B, no other charges are pending against the petitioner. Since along with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, no other charges under relevant Sections of law are pending against the petitioner, it is needless to say that the relief sought in the present petition can easily be granted and therefore, the present petition is liable to be allowed.

¶15

In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.01.2016, passed by the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, Chennai-56, is quashed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

msk

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

1.Special Court under the prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002,

¶22

Chennai 56.

¶23

2.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Dharmapuri.

¶24

The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, Advocate, sr.50756
1 cc to Public Prosecutor, sr.51193
Crl.OP No.7091 of 2016 in
Crl.MP No.3710 of 2016
sv co
kra 29.09.2016

¶25

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

Murugesan v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

Mr.Vikram Singh Vs the Commissioner of Police

Seethalakshmi Vs the Secretary to the

Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs G. Sharmiladevi

M/S.Trichy Construction Vs M/S.Oil and Natural Gas

Union of India, Vs The Registrar

Ramajayam Vs the Secretary to the