Dismissed

K.Palaniselvan, v. State Rep by

Madras HC15 Feb 2018CRL OP/4399/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall a warrant issued for the petitioner's non-appearance. The Court held that Section 482 cannot be used to bypass Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., which mandates surrender for recall of a warrant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition No: 4399 of 2018 dismissed observing that Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to bypass Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.

K.Palaniselvan, Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 15.02.2018

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran

¶5

Criminal Original Petition No:4399 of 2018

¶6

K.Palaniselvan ...Petitiner/Ist Petitioner/ 2nd Accused /versus/ The State Rep.by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/EOW/Chennai, ...Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.3851 of 2017 in C.C.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry dated 08.12.2017.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor -----O R D E R

¶8

This petition is filed under Section 482 to recall the warrant issued by the Trial Court for non appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court.

¶9

When the case was posted for framing the charges, the reason for non appearance has found in the petition is that the petitioner was suffering from ill-health and therefore he could not appear before the Court. However, the trial Court has found that the reason stated is not satisfactory. Despite repeated

¶10

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

¶11

instructions, this petitioners along with other two accused have not appeared before the Court on that day, when it was posted for framing charge. The Trial Court has also recorded that already sufficient time is granted to the petitioners but they are not co-operating with the progress of the Trial.

¶12

Considering the above circumstances and in the interest of the justice, the petition to dispense with the personal appearance came to be dismissed. and warrant has been issued on 08.12.2017.

¶13

This petitioner instead of surrender before the Court and seeking recall of warrant under Section 70 Clause (2) of Cr.P.C. He had approached this High Court by invoking inherent the power of the High Court.

¶14

This Court long back has held that Section 482 cannot be invoked to circumvent the provisions of Section 70 Clause (2) of Cr.P.C. Despite the said pronouncement, such applications are filed before this Court.

¶15

It is needless to say that if the petitioner surrender before the Trial Court with sufficient medical records and explain the court for his non appearance, the trial Court can consider it on merits.

¶16

With the above observation, Criminal Original Petition No: 4399 of 2018 is dismissed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

bsm

¶21

¶22

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.

¶23

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/EOW/Chennai,

¶24

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

¶25

The Special Public Prosecutor, Madras

¶26

+1 cc to Mr.M.Selvam Advocate sr 1969

¶27

Criminal Original Petition No: 4399 of 2018

¶28

pvs(co)
aa28/02/2018

¶29

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

K.Palaniselvan, v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Palaniselvan, v. State Rep by

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

Dr.Asir Packia Singh, Vs the Joint Director, Chennai

Kadirvel (65 Years) Vs State Rep by

Y.R.Manoharan Vs State by

A.Chinnasamy, Aged 56 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

R.MANI,65 Yrs, Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Jayaraman, Vs the Additional Superintendent