Allowed

V.Nandakumar v. Abraham Mathew

Madras HC6 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/10849/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed by an advocate seeking exoneration from being a witness in a private complaint lodged against him. The court exonerated the petitioner from the witness list.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's name was exonerated from the list of witnesses in the private complaint lodged by the first respondent.

V.Nandakumar Vs Abraham Mathew — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRL.O.P(MD) No.10849 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P(MD) No.10849 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6815 of 2019

¶6

V.Nandakumar ... Petitioner/2^nd Witness

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.Abrahan Mathew ...1^st Respondent/Complainant 2.Suseela George 3.Jibu Mathew ...2^nd and 3rd Respondents / Accused

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, to exonerate the petitioner, who is citing as second witness in S.T.C.No.70 of 2018 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sukumar For R1 : Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban for M/s.APN Law Associates

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, to exonerate the petitioner, who is citing as second witness in S.T.C.No.70 of 2018 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an practising Advocate, on the instruction, on behalf of the second respondent, he passed a legal notice to the first respondent. Now, the first respondent lodged a private complaint for the offence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. r/w Sections 499 and 500 I.P.C. and also seeking compensation as against the respondents 2 and 3 herein. While filing the complaint, the first respondent cited the petitioner as one of the witnesses to the complaint. Now the first respondent has no objection from exonerating the petitioner from the witnesses as cited in the complaint.

¶14

3.Considering the facts and circumstances, the name of the petitioner has been exonerated from the list of witnesses as mentioned in the complaint lodged by the first respondent in S.T.C.No.70 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/2

¶16

CRL.O.P(MD) No.10849 of 2019

¶17

No.II, Padmanabhapuram. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly. However, the first respondent is at liberty to mark legal notice sent by the petitioner on behalf of the second respondent before the trial Court during the trial. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar (AD II) // True Copy //

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶21

Ls To: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶22

+1 CC to M/s.N.ANANTHAPADMANABAN, Advocate ( SR-96529[F] dated 06/11/2019 )

¶23

+1 CC to M/s.S.SUKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-97161[F] dated 08/11/2019 )

¶24

CRL.O.P(MD) No.10849 of 2019 06.11.2019

¶25

KK/SAR/02.12.2019/2P-5C/

¶26

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

¶27

2/2

V.Nandakumar v. Abraham Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Nandakumar v. Abraham Mathew

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

Sri Vakkirakaliamman spinning Mills Vs L.S.Mills Limited

M.Sathiyanarayanan Vs The Commissioner of police

Jothi ramalingam Vs Thilagavathi alias Dorathi samathana thilagavathi

K.Poongathai, Vs D.Selvaraj

A.Sankareswari, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Muthupillai Vs the Inspector of Police