Dismissed

D.G.Leo Pristly @ Leo Christly v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Apr 2017CRL OP(MD)/3298/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a criminal original petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The High Court directed the accused to cooperate with the trial, set a timeline for trial completion, and ordered the police to monitor witness production.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; trial to be completed within three months; police directed to monitor witnesses; fresh FIR directed if accused abscond.

D.G.Leo Pristly @ Leo Christly Vs the Inspector of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3298 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.2518, 2519 & 3296 of 2017

¶6

D.G.Leo Pristly @ Leo Christly ... Petitioner/A4

¶7

-vs-

¶8

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶9

2.Vedhamanickam ... 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant

¶10

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C.No.62 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram and quash the same as against the petitioner herein.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arul For R1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.62 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram and quash the same as against the petitioner herein.

¶15

Today, pursuant to the order dated 12.04.2017, Mr.M.Sree Abhinav, I.P.S., Assistant Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay is present and the Non Bailable Warrant issued against him is recalled.

¶16

The Police have filed a final report, wherein it is stated that A1 & A2 have surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram on 24.03.2017 and 28.03.2017 respectively and the warrant issued against them has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recalled. It is also seen that summons have been served on A3 and A5 for hearing on 10.07.2017.

¶17

¶18

On a reading of the charge sheet, it is alleged by the defacto complainant that on 24.12.2006 around 19:00hrs, he was attacked by the accused herein in which he sustained some injuries. Since there are prima facie materials in the charge sheet, the prosecution cannot be quashed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others , reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. It is further seen that the case is of the year 2007. Therefore, the accused are directed to co-operate with the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram for completing the trial and in the event of any of the accused absconding again, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial in C.C.No.62 of 2007 within three months from 10.07.2017. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay is directed to monitor the conduct of the trial by ensuring that the Police produce necessary witnesses before the Trial Court.

¶19

With the above observation and direction, this petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶22

/True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

To:

¶25

The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay.

¶26

The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶27

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

¶29

AE/SV/09.05.2017/2P/4C

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3298 of 2017 18.04.2017

D.G.Leo Pristly @ Leo Christly v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.G.Leo Pristly @ Leo Christly v. the Inspector of Police

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

Ahamed Khan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Gracelin Ebenezer Vs Suthakar Kanidurai

Karthick @ Nattu Vs the Inspector of Police

T.R.S.Subburaj Vijairam Vs Ashok Dal and Oil Mill Company

Muthukrishnan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

N.Pappathi, Vs the Superintendent of Police