Disposed

T.Mutharasan v. Station House Officer

Madras HC14 Jun 2018CRL RC/1524/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, this Court dismissed the appeal against the rejection of a discharge petition where prima facie evidence existed. The High Court directed the trial court to frame charges and complete proceedings within four months, clarifying that observations on discharge do not prejudice the trial on merits.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to frame charges and complete proceedings within 4 months.

T.Mutharasan Vs Station House Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1524 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

T.Mutharasan ..Petitioner/Accused

¶7

-vs-

¶8

State Rep.by Station House Office, Cuddalore Old Town, Police Station, Cuddalore District. ..Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., against judgment dated 29.08.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1796 of 2011 in C.C.No.108 of 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muralidharan

¶11

For Respondent : Mrs.S.Thankira

¶12

Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Revision petition has been filed against the dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.

¶15

The Court below after taking into consideration, the entire materials placed before it came to a conclusion that prima facie evidence is available in order to frame charges against the petitioner and to proceed with the trial. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the certain documents on the ground that these documents will clearly prove that the petitioner has not committed any offence.

¶16

The Hon'ble Apex Court in more than one judgment has held that for considering a discharge petition, the Court has to take into consideration, the materials placed, including the final report and the statements and materials filed along with it. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court cannot take into consideration any materials that are produced by the accused persons. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Syed Basher Ahamed and others VS. Mohammed Jamed and another reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 721.

¶17

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

¶18

This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. The Calendar Case is of the year 2010 and charges are yet to be framed. The trial Court is directed to frame charges and complete the proceedings within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶19

It is made clear that any observation made by this Court, while dismissing the discharge petition shall not have any bearing on the trial Court, while deciding the case on merits and the trial Court shall take into consideration, only those materials that are placed before it, in the course of trial, for arriving at a final conclusion.

¶20

With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dna To 1.The Station House Officer, The Station House Office, Cuddalore Old Town, Police Station, Cuddalore District. 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore 3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore 4.The Registrar Judicial, High Court, Madras 5.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. (In the note the trial court was directed to report the compliance of the direction before this Court) RV(CO) sm:27.6.2018

¶22

Crl.R.C.No.1524 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶23

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

T.Mutharasan v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Mutharasan v. Station House Officer

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

Manam Fruit Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjeev Malhotra Authorised

M/S.Armour Pharmaceuticals Vs M/S.T.v.S.Finance and Services

Mrs.Lakshmi Vs Mr.M.K.Krishnan

K.Sirajuddin Vs K.Nasrin

Mathiazagan Vs Station House Office

S.Manikandarajan Vs the District Reveneu Officer