Disposed

R.Dharmalingam v. State Rep. by

Madras HC17 Aug 2016CRL OP/9947/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge sheet in a criminal case where the trial had commenced, the High Court held it was not a fit case for quashing. However, the Court directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months, empowered the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses during their examination-in-chief relying on Vinoth Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete trial within six months; permission to cross-examine witnesses during their examination-in-chief.

R.Dharmalingam Vs State Rep. by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.08.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.9947 of 2016

R. Dharmalingam

... Petitioner

Vs.

State

represented by the Inspector of Police Pallipalayam Police Station Namakkal

¶11

(Crime No.617 of 2002) ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in relation to the charge sheet No.223/2003 dated 29.08.2003 in C.C. No.406 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District and quash the same.

¶13

For petitioner :Mr. K. Shahul Hameed

¶14

For respondent :Mr. C. Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in relation to the charge sheet No.223/2003 dated 29.08.2003 in C.C. No.406 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District and quash the same.

¶17

2 Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.R. Ashok Kumar, Inspector of Police, Pallipalayam Police Station, Namakkal District is present.

¶18

3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that 11 witnesses were produced before the Trial Court on various dates and some of them have been examined as witnesses.

¶19

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

¶20

4 Since trial has commenced, this is not a fit case to quash the prosecution. However, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall crossexamine the witnesses on the day they are examined-in-chief, as held by the Supreme Court in Vinoth Kumar vs. State of Punjab [2015(1) MLJ (Crl.) 288].

¶21

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Pallipalayam Police Station,
Namakkal.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruchengode,
Namakkal District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai 600 104.

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.9947 of 2016 rk[co] srg 02/09/2016

¶24

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

R.Dharmalingam v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Dharmalingam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Athinarayanan Subramanian Vs Commissioner of Police

M.Uma Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Vivekanandan, Aged 73 Years Vs Inspector of Police

P Velladurai Vs Mr G Krishnakumar

K.Boopathi, Aged About 38 Yrs Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

N. Arumugam Vs Sabitha