Dismissed

Lakshmanan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Jan 2019CRL OP/10649/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declined to quash proceedings under Section 306 IPC on the ground that nine prosecution witnesses had already been examined. Instead, it directed the trial court to re-call these witnesses suo-moto for cross-examination by the accused and complete the trial expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to re-call examined witnesses for cross-examination and to complete the trial within a short time.

Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.01.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.10649 of 2013

¶6

and

¶7

MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶8

Lakshmanan ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Gingee Circle, Valathi Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.270 of 2009) ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records culminating in S.C.No.18 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Gingee and to quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Arun Anbumani

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.R.Surya Prakasam, Government Advocate(Crl. Side)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition has been filed by the accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.18 of 2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gingee.

¶16

The respondent herein has filed a charge sheet against four accused persons and the petitioner herein is the accused No.4. In the Charge sheet, it is stated that the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. Based on the said charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, has taken the case on file and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Villupuram. The Sessions Judge, Villupuram, has taken the case in S.C.No.18 of 2013 and made over the same

¶17

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

¶18

to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gingee. The petitioner herein has filed the present petition to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.18 of 2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gingee.

¶19

A perusal of the records shows that an Interim Stay was granted by this Court on 20.06.2013 till 28.06.2013 and finally it was extended on 04.11.2013 for four weeks. Since the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has represented before this Court on 09.08.2018 that already some of the witnessess were examined on the side of the prosecution before the Trial Court, this Court taking into consideration that the matter has already been stayed, called for a report from the Trial Court.

¶20

The Assistant Sessions Judge, Gingee by the letter dated 25.09.2018 has stated that his predecessor examined the LWs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 as PWs 1 to 7 on 08.09.2013 in chief-examination. He also stated that subsequently on 16.09.2013, Lws.4 and 13 were examined as Pws.8 and 9. He further stated that the interim stay which was extended by this Court on 04.09.2013 was received by his Court only on 28.10.2013. So, it is clear that on the date of examination of the aforesaid witnessess, the Trial Court had no knowledge about the extension of interim stay.

¶21

Taking into consideration that already nine witnessess were examined-in-chief on the side of the prosecution, at this stage, it would not be proper for this Court to quash the proceedings. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court should be allowed to complete the Trial and dispose of the case on merits.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the interim stay granted by this Court, the petitioner herein and other accused did not cross examine the aforesaid witnessess and hence he requests to direct the Trial Court to give an opportunity to the accused persons to crossexamine all those witnesses.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the Trial Court is directed to re-call the aforesaid witnessess, suo-moto and give an opportunity to the accused persons to cross-examine PWs.1 to 9. It is also made clear that once the witnesses appear before the Court, the accused persons should crossexamine them without seeking any adjournment. Considering the fact that the aforesaid case is pending from the year 2013, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gingee, is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the aforesaid case in accordance with law as early as possible.

¶24

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

¶25

In the result, this criminal original petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vv
To
1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Gingee
2. - do – Through'The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram
3. The Inspector of Police,
Gingee Circle,
Valathi Police Station,
Villupuram District
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.Arun Anbumani, Advocate SR.No.651
Crl.O.P.No.10649 of 2013
and
MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
PA(CO)
GMY(13/02/2019)

¶27

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

Lakshmanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmanan 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

R.Balamurali Krishna Vs the Inspector of Police

Aruchamy Vs State Rep. by

Kaveri, Vs the State Rep by Its

Mrs.Meenakshi Ramji Vs G.Parthasarathy

Rathina Subramanian Vs State of Tamilnadu

Sindhuja Vs the Insector of Police