Disposed

G.Sanjeevi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Dec 2019CRL OP/32224/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this expedited criminal original petition filed by an accused, the Madras High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the pending case early and directed the respondent to serve summons to a witness without seeking further adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to dispose of the case early and directed the respondent to serve summons to P.W.1 and other witnesses without further adjournments.

G.Sanjeevi Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 02.12.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.32224 of 2019

¶6

G.Sanjeevi ... Petitioner
Vs.
State
Rep.by Inspector of Police,
Anti Vice Squad, Chintadripet,
Chennai – 600 002. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the trial court to
expedite the trial in the C.C.No.5331 of 2017 on the file of the
IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai as early as
possible.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ravi For Respondent : M.Mohammed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R This petition has been filed by the accused No.2 to direct the trial court to expedite the trial in C.C.No.5331 of 2017 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and dispose of the same as early as possible.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner/second accused has submitted that the aforesaid case in C.C.No.5331 of 2017 is pending for the past two years without any progress and hence, he requests to direct the trial court to dispose of the aforesaid case expeditiously.

¶9

Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that on 17.11.2017 itself, PW1 was examined in chief and on that date, the accused person did not cross examine the said witness and subsequently, he filed petition to recall the said witness and the same was allowed. Thereafter, summons sent to P.W.1. He further submitted that

¶10

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

¶11

inspite of their sincere efforts, they could not serve summons to PW1 for cross examination and hence requests to grant reasonable time for producing P.W.1 and other witnesses.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case at early. The respondent is also directed to serve summons to P.W.1 and other witnesses and produce before the trial court at early without seeking further adjournments.

¶13

With the above said directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Vv/ebsi
To
1. The IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Saidapet, Chennai .
2. The Inspector of Police,
Anti Vice Squad, Chintadripet,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.

¶15

+1cc to Mr.D.Ravi, Advocate SR.No.100956

¶16

CRL.O.P.No.32224 of 2019

¶17

RP(CO) GMY(27/01/2020)

¶18

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

G.Sanjeevi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sanjeevi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthupaiyan Vs K.Subban(Deceased)

N.S.Sakina Begum (Deceased) Vs Mohammed Ibrahim

Vijayalakshmi Vs Mariappan

R.Babu Vs P.Sivakumar

G.M.Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police (L and O)

L.Ravi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police