Dismissed

Mr. Jannathul Firdhouse v. Shri v Rajkumar Moses

Madras HC26 Sept 2019CRL OP(MD)/5952/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court held that quashing could not be considered as the trial had commenced and prosecution witnesses were examined.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; connected M.Ps. closed; petitioner at liberty to raise points before trial court.

Mr. Jannathul Firdhouse Vs Shri v. Rajkumar Moses — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5952 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.09.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5952 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.4042 & 4043 of 2019

¶7

Jannathul Fridhouse ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

V.Rajkumar Moses, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Customs Division, Tuticorin. .. Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the proceeding in C.C.No.5 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Magistrate, Madurai.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Ms.A.L.Ganthimathi

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Special Public Prosecutor

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Magistrate, Madurai.

¶15

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶16

3.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that in C.C.No.5 of 2018, the trial Court already commenced the trial and on the side of the prosecution all the witnesses were examined, except the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that in fact the petitioner filed a petition to re-call and cross-examine the witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 and it is pending.

¶17

4.Recording the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, at this stage, the quash petition cannot be considered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/2

¶19

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5952 of 2019

¶20

Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the trial Court, during the trial. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶25

¶26

1.The Additional Chief Magistrate, Madurai.

¶27

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Customs Division, Tuticorin.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.AL.GANTHIMATHI, Advocate(SR-16517[I]dated 27/09/2019 ) +1 CC to Mr.C.ARUL VADIVEL@SEKAR, Advocate ( SR-89893[F] dated 27/09/2019 )

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5952 of 2019 26.09.2019

¶30

¶31

VB(21.10.2019) 2P 5C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

Mr. Jannathul Firdhouse v. Shri v Rajkumar Moses

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Jannathul Firdhouse v. Shri v Rajkumar Moses

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

Karuppasamy, Vs Karpagavalli

George Fernando, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Vanaja Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police

Muthupandi Vs The inspetor of police

Duraimurugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Jahir Hussain Vs the Inspector of Police