Allowed

Mariappan, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Jul 2017CRL OP(MD)/8042/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought directions to dispose of a criminal case (C.C.No.108 of 2012) within a stipulated time due to a huge delay caused by the non-appearance of the accused and examination of only 9 out of 25 listed witnesses. The Court directed the Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the case within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur to dispose of C.C.No.108 of 2012 within four months from the date of receipt of this order.

Mariappan, Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.07.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8042 of 2017 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.5476 of 2017

¶7

Mariappan

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Nagar Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to pass an order of direction, directing the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur to dispose the case in C.C.No.108 of 2012 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition has been filed to direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur to dispose the case in C.C.No.108 of 2012 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶16

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶17

A report has been received from the concerned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Fast Track Court, Srivilluputtur. 25 witnesses have been shown in the list of witnesses and out of 25 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined so far. It is seen that the accused has not appeared in person sofar. There is a huge delay. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to issue a following direction:

¶18

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur is directed to dispose of the C.C.No.108 of 2012 within a period of four months https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the prosecution is expected to co-operate for the timely disposal of this Case.

¶19

¶20

With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition

¶21

is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Judicial Magistrate No.II,

¶27

Srivilliputtur.

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Nagar Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate in SR.No.65108

¶30

TA/vsa

¶31

AE/SV AAM/SAR3/10.08.2017/2P/4C

¶32

Crl.O.P(MD)No.8042 of 2017 13.07.2017

¶33

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

Mariappan, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariappan, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Kavitha Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Krishnamoorthy@Babu Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Mandhiram Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Padma, F-43 Vs State Rep.by

M. Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Thomas Vs the Deputy Superintendent of