In this Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner sought a direction under Section 482 CrPC to compel the respondent police to serve summons on accused persons in a murder case to ensure the trial proceeds.
Petitioner directed to ensure summons are served on accused to ensure their presence in the Trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
Crl.O.P.No.8399 of 2017
G.Sathya ... Petitioner
Vs The state rep.by the Inspector of Police, C1, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Cr.No.704 of 2011 ... Respondent
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to issue a direction to the respondent to serve summons on the accused persons in PRC No.27 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and fix the time limit for the completion of the trial within a specified time.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Santhosh For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R
It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this Criminal Original Petition that the petitioner's father was brutally murdered on 22.10.2011 and further the property of the petitioner's father was damaged. The petitioner gave a complaint dated 22.10.2011 to the respondent against the accused persons and an FIR was also registered on 22.10.2011 in Cr.No.704 of 2011 against the accused persons. Final report was also submitted by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on 16.05.2012 which was also numbered in PRC No.27 of 2012. While so, the accused persons are not appearing before the Trial Court even though non-bailable warrants were issued against them and due to the same, the case is still not committed to the Sessions Judge. Hence this Criminal Original Petition.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the offence was committed in the year 2011 and final report was filed in the year 2012, there is no progress in the
case as the accused persons are not appearing before the Trial Court. Thus he prayed for a suitable direction to ensure the presence of the accused persons before the Trial Court.
3.Mr.C.Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, takes notice for the respondent.
4.Considering the averments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent police is directed to take appropriate steps to serve summons on the accused persons in PRC No.27 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and ensure their presence before the Trial Court in the next hearing date.
5.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition
is disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
KM
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Sriperumbudur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
C1, Sriperumbudur Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai-600 104.
+1cc to Mr.S.Santhosh, Advocate, S.R.No.40827
Crl.O.P.No.8399 of 2017
KGK(CO)
CA(12/06/2017)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent police is directed to serve summons on the accused and ensure their presence before the Trial Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Sathya
The state represented by the Inspector of Police, C1, Sriperumbudur Police Station
R. Mahadevan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
