Dismissed

Palanivelu v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Oct 2018CRL OP/5625/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed a Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The Court held that since the trial court had already commenced the trial and examined witnesses, the lower court should be allowed to complete the trial and decide the case on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; proceedings allowed to continue in the trial court.

Palanivelu Vs the Inspector of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.10.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5625 of 2013

¶6

and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

¶7

Palanivelu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem. (Crime No.29 of 2012) 2.K.S.Srinivasan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.7 f 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem, and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Panneer Selvam
for Mr.S.Gunalan
For Respondent 1 : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R

¶9

This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Accused2 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.7 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem.

¶10

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is the owner of a vacant land in S.R.No.9/8B of S.Papparappatti Village measuring about 1716 Square feet. He further submitted that the petitioner has purchased the said property from one Kulanthaivelu (A1) under a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2010. The second respondent has entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner for purchasing the said property for a sum of Rs.77,000/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand only) and subsequently obtained a sale deed dated 08.12.2010. He further submitted that on 18.11.2011, the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent stating that the petitioner herein has already created a mortgage by the original owner namely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kulanthaivelu (A1) by deposit of title deed with Indian Bank,

¶11

Veerapandi Branch on 31.03.2008 and suppressing the said fact, the petitioner has sold the property to the second respondent. He further submitted that the petitioner has not created any mortgage and therefore the petitioner cannot be prosecuted.

¶12

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who is appearing for the first respondent has submitted that already in C.C.No.7 of 2013, a trial was commenced and PWs.1 to PW.5 were examined and under the said circumstances, he requests to allow the Trial Court to complete the trial and dispose of the case on merits. He further submitted that the case has been transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem and trial has commenced.

¶13

4.Considering the fact that already trial has commenced and PWs.1 to 5 were already examined before the trial Court, this Court is of the view that the trial Court should be allowed to complete the trial and dispose of the case on merits. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

5.In the result, the Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶15

Assistant Registrar Sd///True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem. 2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Salem. 3.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Salem. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Krd 23/10 Crl.O.P.No.5625 of 2013

¶16

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

Palanivelu v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanivelu 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

P.Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police

Miss.Loganayagi Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Shanmugasundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Marimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Balamurugan Vs Uma Mandhagini

S.Dhanasekaran Vs D.Umagandhi