Dismissed

Chinnathambi @ Bommanaicken v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC26 Apr 2019CRL OP/3023/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging dismissal of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Court dismissed petition citing petitioners' absence and pending non-bailable warrant, directing trial court to complete proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as devoid of merit due to pending non-bailable warrant; trial directed to be completed within three months.

Chinnathambi @ Bommanaicken Vs the State Rep… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :26.04.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3023 of 2019

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.1994 of 2019

¶8

1.Chinnathambi @ Bommanaicken 2.Ramasamy @ Kathirvel ...Petitioners/ Accused 1 & 2

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State by Inspector of Police, Mallasamudram Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶11

(Crime No.222 of 2015) ...Respondent/ Complainant

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside order dated 13.12.2018 passed in CMP.No.708 of 2018 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal and to allow the above Criminal Original Petition.

¶13

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.12.2018 passed in CMP.No.708 of 2018 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2016 by the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, whereby dismissing the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶16

2.It is seen that the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall P.W.1 and P.W.20 for cross examination in a case in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal. The learned Judge has dismissed the petition by an order dated 13.12.2018 stating that even though sufficient opportunity already given for cross examination of the above said witnesses, the petitioner's side failed to make use of it. Aggrieved by the

¶17

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

¶18

order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal, the petitioners have filed the present petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶19

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are absconding from attending the trial Court and hence non-bailable warrant has been issued as against the petitioners and the same is pending. He further submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner is taking adjournments from February 2019 onwards and thereby dragging on the proceedings.

¶20

4.Heard both sides.

¶21

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that when a non-bailable warrant is pending as against the petitioners, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶22

6.However, the Sessions case is of the year 2016, the Court below is directed to complete the trial proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. rm Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal. 2.The Inspector of Police, Mallasamudram Police Station, Namakkal District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.R.Nalliyappan, Advocate, SR.No.41379 Crl.O.P.No.3023 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.1994 of 2019 Kak(12/07/2019)

¶23

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

Chinnathambi @ Bommanaicken v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnathambi @ Bommanaicken v. the State Rep by Its

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

Meenakshi Vs the District Superintendent of

Kudiyarasu Vs the Superintendent of Police

Durai Kuppusamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

E.Gnanambal, Aged 87 Years, Vs the Director General of Police

M/S. Coramandal Agencies Vs the Inspector of Police

Saravanakumar, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of