Disposed

M.Sarasu v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Jan 2020CRL OP/10251/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court to expedite the trial in PRC.No.122 of 2012. The petitioner's appearance was dispensed with except for receiving charge copies, Section 313 questioning, and judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to expedite the trial; dispensed with petitioner's appearance except for mandatory stages like charge copies and Section 313 questioning.

M.Sarasu Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.10251 of 2013

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

M. Sarasu ... Petitioner/2^nd Accused

¶8

Vs. The State By Inspector of Police, E-2 Royapettah Police Station, Chennai – 600 014. ... Respondent/Respondent

¶9

Prayer:

¶10

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in proceedings comprised on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in PRC.No.122 of 2012 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, A.P.P.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in proceedings comprised on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in PRC.No.122 of 2012 and quash the same.

¶15

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial and complete the same as early as possible. He would further submit that the appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court may be dispensed with and would further submit that the petitioner is ready to appear as and when necessary arise.

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent concede to the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶19

4.In view of the above, this Court directs the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai to expedite the trial in PRC.No.122 of 2012 and complete the same as early as possible. The appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with. However, this order will not stand on the way of the Trial Court to insist for the appearance of the petitioner for receiving copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and judgment and as and when the Trial Court feels it necessary.

¶20

5.With the above directions, these criminal original
petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai
2.Inspector of Police,
E-2 Royapettah Police Station,
Chennai – 600 014.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
+1cc to Mr.T.T.Ravichandran, Advocate sr.2129

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.10251 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶22

vba(co) nr 17/02/2020

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

M.Sarasu v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sarasu 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

G.Chandrahasan Vs State by

Mr.Shiva Kumar Vs Tamil Nadu Real Estates

Deccan Chronicle Holdings Vs Indus Ind Bank Limited

Anjani Kumar Vs N.Rajasekar, M/43 Years

K.Karthikeyan Vs K.Mahendran

S.Jayakumar Vs K.Mahendran