Dismissed

Jeyakumar v. Senthilkumar

Madras HC29 Oct 2018CRL OP(MD)/1548/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a withdrawn Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court dispensed with the petitioner's appearance at the trial stage, conditioning it on presence for charge sheet reading, Section 313 examination, and judgment, while directing an undertaking for continued defense.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner's presence dispensed with subject to specific conditions.

Jeyakumar Vs Senthilkumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.10.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶3

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1548 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.1280 and 1281 of 2017

¶4

Jeyakumar ... Petitioner / Accused

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Senthilkumar ... Respondent / Complainant

¶7

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records pertaining to S.T.C.No.131 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Palani, Dindigul District and quash the same as illegal forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Uthayakumar For Respondent : No Appearance

¶9

ORDER

¶10

When this Court was about to dismiss the Criminal Original Petition on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the same and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶11

2.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.

¶12

3.Accepting the said submission, the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that he shall be present for receiving charge sheet, for answering the charges, at the time of questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing judgment.

¶13

4.The petitioner is further directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit that the counsel representing him will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined in chief. The petitioner shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses. If the petitioner adopts any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist for his appearance and deal with the petitioner in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JT 2001(4)s SC 319.

¶14

¶15

5.This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶18

To:

¶19

1.The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Palani, Dindigul District.

¶20

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1548 of 2017 29.10.2018

¶22

MYR

¶23

ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 2/03.12.2018/2P/3C

¶24

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

Jeyakumar v. Senthilkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyakumar v. Senthilkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Sriraman Vs State Rep.by

G. Malaichamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Mohamed Atham Vs the Inspector of Police

T.Aswin Rajasimman Vs the Inspector of Police

Aathimuthu Manoharan, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police