Partly allowed

C.Jeya Chandran v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Jun 2017CRL OP(MD)/4216/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought speedy disposal under Section 482 CrPC due to trial delay caused by one accused absconding. The High Court directed the police to file an application to split the case against the absconding accused and complete the trial against existing accused within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to split case against absconding accused and complete trial against existing accused within 6 months.

C.Jeya Chandran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.06.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶4

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4216 of 2017

¶5

1.C.Jeya Chandran 2.L.Sekar 3.N.Kannan

¶6

: Petitioners/Accused 1, 2, 4

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.234 of 2009)

¶9

: Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking direction for speedy disposal of the case in C.C.No.77 of 2010, pending on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Eraniel.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan

¶12

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

No representation for the petitioner.

¶15

The Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, has sent a report, dated 28.04.2017, wherein it is stated as follows:-

¶16

“3. I further humbly submitted that this case was taken on file on 11.3.2010. A1 to A4 appeared on 26.5.10 and charge framed in this case on 3.6.2017. On 4.7.2016 against 3^rd accused Non Bailable Warrant was issued for his non appearance. Till date Non Bailable Warrant pending against 3^rd accused. The case is passed on 12.07.2017 as NBW pending against 3^rd accused.

¶17

I humbly submit that though I am holding the full additional charge of Additional District Munsif, Eraniel, I have been taking all efforts to dispose of the Hon'ble High Court direction cases, custody cases https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and senior citizens and old pending cases by giving priority.

¶18

¶19

I humbly submit the remarks regarding the

¶20

reference as per Honourable High Court.”

¶21

From the above, it is seen that A3 is in abscondance and therefore the trial is not progressing. In view of the nature of the allegations in the charge sheet, this Court directs the respondent police to submit a report and file an application for splitting up the case as against the absconding accused before the Trial Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial against the existing accused and complete the same, within 6 months.

¶22

With the above direction, this criminal original petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶25

/True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

The Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District.

¶29

The Sub Inspector of Police,

¶30

Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶31

JIKR

¶32

PSM/SV-MMS/SAR4/28.06.2017/2P/3C

¶33

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4216 of 2017 14.06.2017

¶34

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

C.Jeya Chandran v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Jeya Chandran v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

R.Solairaj Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Balasubramanian Vs Auditya Laxmy

Viswanathan Vs Auditya Laxmy

P.S.a.Akkayasamy Vs a.Habeeb Mohammed

H.T.Sathiya Dhas, Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Navaneethan Vs State through Inspector of