Dismissed

B.Manoharan v. State Rep. by

Madras HC21 Jun 2016CRL OP/9799/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In three Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC, Benches rejected the petitioners' plea for interference. The court held that as the trial had commenced and sufficient materials existed against the petitioners, it was not a fit case to quash proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petitions are dismissed with liberty to raise all points before the trial Court.

B.Manoharan Vs State Rep. by — Madras HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 21.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP.Nos.9799 to 9801 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.5114 to 5117, 5262 & 5268 of 2016
B.Manoharan ...Petitioner/Accused in all
Crl.O.Ps.
Vs
1. State by,
The Inspector of Police,
Perambalur Police Station,
Perambalur.
(Crime No.414/2004) ...Ist Respondent/Complainant
2. K.Periyamuthu
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Perambalur. ...2nd Respondent/De-facto
Complainant in all Crl.O.Ps.

¶8

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in the Charge Sheet in C.C.Nos.133 of 2007, 131 of 2007 and 132 of 2007 respectively on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur in Crime No.414 of 2004 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶9

COMMON O R D E R

¶10

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records in the Charge Sheet in C.C.Nos.133 of 2007, 131 of 2007 and 132 of 2007 respectively on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur in Crime No.414 of 2004 pending

¶11

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

¶12

on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶13

When the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial in this case has commenced and two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Charge Sheet also filed against Manoharan and Chandrasekaran. The said Chandrasekaran died.

¶14

Since there are sufficient materials for the trial Court to proceed against the petitioner. It is not a fit case to interfere at this stage. Hence, the criminal original petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points before the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶15

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sms
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Perambalur Police Station,
Perambalur.
(Crime No.414/2004)
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Sivakumar Advocate sr.34591

¶16

Crl.OP.Nos.9799 to 9801 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5114 to 5117, 5262 & 5268 of 2016

¶17

nrjk(co) aa20/07/2016

¶18

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

B.Manoharan v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Manoharan v. State Rep. 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

S.Radha Vs State Rep. by

B.Indra Vs State Rep by

Manimegalai Vs the State Rep by Its

Shankar Nathan Vs M/S.Redington (India) Ltd.

K.Selvam Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Sai Venkata Prasad Vs State Rep by