Dismissed

R.Thirumal v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC10 Jul 2019CRL OP/18109/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal petition seeking quash of proceedings at Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, holding factual inconsistencies are for trial court as no legal ground for quash exists.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner presence at trial court dispensed with except for specific stages; directed to furnish undertaking regarding attendance and representation; connected miscellaneous petit

R.Thirumal Vs the State Rep. by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.07.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18109 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.9165 of 2019

¶6

R.Thirumal ... Petitioner/A-2

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Dharmapuri District (Crime No.1/AC/2015) ... Respondent/complainant

¶9

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Sharadh Kumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner/A-2 seeking to call for the records relating to the complaint in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri and quash the same.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, failed to see that the occurrence was of the year is 2010-11 but the FIR was registered only in the year 2015 and that the respondents has stated that the delay in filing the F.I.R was due to the pendency of preliminary enquiry which proved that the case has been falsely implicated on the petitioner. He would further submit that in the F.I.R, the total misappropriation amount is

¶15

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

¶16

mentioned as Rs.48,750/-, but in the charge sheet the total misappropriated amount is mentioned as Rs.8,71,965/- which shows the falsity in the case. He would further submit that LW.2 in this case one M.Ilahijan, had stated that on 23.03.2011, the first accused had sanctioned the sum to five institutions whereas in the charge sheet it has been mentioned as the sum of Rs.10,50,620/- was sanctioned to three institutions only and nothing has been stated about the remaining two institutions.

¶17

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no legal ground has been raised in the petition seeking to quash. He further submitted that all the grounds raised are factual in nature which can only be decided during the fair and factual trial. It is his further submission that the petitioners have not made any legal ground for quashing the proceedings.

¶18

4.This Court finds no ground to interfere with the proceedings based on the facts. All these can be raised before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Hence this Court was about to dismiss the application.

¶19

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray that the presence of the petitioner may be dispensed with before the trial Court.

¶20

6.Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsels, the presence of the petitioner before the trial court is dispensed with, however the petitioner shall appear at the time of initial questioning u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of judgment.

¶21

The petitioner is further directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit that he will be duly represented by a counsel on all hearing dates and the learned 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. The petitioner shall appear before the Court in the event if his presence is insisted by the trial Judge for the progress of trial. If the petitioner adopts any dilatory 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 (2001)4 SCC 667.

¶22

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

¶23

This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri 2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Dharmapuri District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. +1cc to Mr.L.Sharadhkumar, Advocate Sr.57825

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.18109 of 2019

¶30

br[co] srg 08/08/2019

¶31

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

R.Thirumal v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Thirumal v. the State Rep. by

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

C.Karthik Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Ramakrishnan Vs State Rep by

Zahir Hussan @ Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

Durai Vs the Inspector of Police

Attica Gold Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Rep. by

S.Vijaya Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police