Disposed

E.Perumal v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Sept 2019CRL OP/22320/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal original petition arising under Section 482 CrPC, the court directed the lower court to complete committal proceedings within four months and ordered the Superintendent of Police to effectively execute pending non-bailable warrants due to excessive delay.

What did the court decide?

Committed proceedings to be completed within 4 months; Superintendent of Police directed to order execution of pending non-bailable warrants.

E.Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.22320 of 2019

¶6

E.Perumal

¶7

...Petitioner/Defacto complainant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Doosi Police Station,

¶10

Doosi, Kanchipuram District.

¶11

(Crime No.200/2010)

¶12

...Respondents/Complainant

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Crl.P.C, to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cheyyar to expedite the Committal Proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2012 in Crime No.200 of 2010 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

The petitioner is the defacto complainant. The limited prayer sought for in the present petition is to expedite the committal proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2012 in Crime No.200 of 2010, on the ground that the proceedings are pending for almost 9 years.

¶18

2.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the case has been split up in the following manner as:-

¶19

“In PRC.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cheyyar A2, A4, A8, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14 and A18, in which, A2, A4, A8 and A18 is died and other Accused are absconding.

¶20

and

¶21

In PRC.No.27 of 2012, before the Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, A9, A15, A16, A17, A19, A20, A21 and A22, in which, all Accused are absconding.”

¶22

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

¶23

3.In view of the limited prayer sought for and taking into consideration, the long pendency of the proceedings, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall endeavour to complete the committal proceedings as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also at liberty to seek for further split up of the proceedings.

¶24

4.It is also to be noticed that the pendency of the proceedings for over the period of 9 years is owing to nonexecution of the Non Bailable Warrants issued in both these proceedings on most of the accused.

¶25

5.It is also brought to the notice that though the warrants are pending for a considerable time, effective steps have not been taken by the police to execute these warrants.

¶26

6.In these circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, shall give appropriate orders to the concerned Jurisdictional Police, who have executed the Non Bailable Warrants, which are pending in P.R.C.No.3 of 2012 and P.R.C.No.27 of 2012.

¶27

7.With these above observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CJ Conf) //True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

sbn/klt To

¶30

1.The Inspector of Police, Doosi Police Station, Doosi, Kanchipuram District.

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶32

3.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.S.Sathish Rajan, Advocate, S.R.No. 79212

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.22320 of 2019

¶35

NMI(CO) GN(18/10/2019)

¶36

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

E.Perumal v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Perumal 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

Divya Vs the Inspector of Police

Nageswari (F/a 40 Yrs) Vs Sudhakar

Ashok Sachdev Vs the Secretary

Senthamizhselvan Vs the State Rep.by

Tmt.Dhanam Vs state of Tamil Nadu Rep by its

R.Jayakumar Vs Inspector of Police