V.Rajendran v. Murugananthan
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court granted an absolute opportunity to quash private complaint proceedings for criminal intimidation filing by a suspended advocate who had a history of being convicted for representing litigants in civil disputes.
What did the court decide?
Proceedings against V. Rajendran in STC No.627 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, quashed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
CRL.O.P.No.24009 of 2013
and
CRL.MP.No.1 of 2013
V.Rajendran ... Petitioner/Accused Vs. Muruganantham ...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in STC No.627 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : No Appearance O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused to quash the proceedings against him in STC.No.627 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent herein is an advocate and he was convicted in S.C.No.196 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal District, on 28.03.2012, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, under Section 494, 498(A), 506(ii) of I.P.C and also under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various terms. As against the said Judgement of conviction and sentence, the respondent herein has filed an appeal before this Court and the same was also dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. He further submitted that after conviction made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, the defacto complainant in that case namely Tmt.P.Dhamayanthi, who is also an advocate, had sent a complaint to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and based on the same, the respondent was suspended from practising before the Courts. He further submitted that when the
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether private complaint proceedings against a police constable should be quashed when the complainant is a suspended advocate previously convicted in champerty for appearing in pending civil complai
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V. Rajendran
- respondent
Muruganantham
Coram
P. Rajamanickam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court