Disposed

K.Arumugam, S/O.S.Kandan, v. the State Rep.by Deputy

Madras HC12 Feb 2020CRL OP/20689/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial in C.C.Nos. 8 & 9 of 2014. The court dispensed with the petitioner's appearance for most proceedings, except for receiving copies, framing charges, and examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Direction to expedite trial and completion; petitioner's appearance dispensed with except for specific stages.

K.Arumugam, S/O.S.Kandan, Vs the State Rep.by Deputy — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.20689 & 20690 of 2014

¶6

and MP.Nos.1 & 1 of 2014

¶7

K.Arumugam, General Manager, M/s.Dharani Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., having office at, Unit-3, Kalayanallur, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram. ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps/Accused Vs. The State rep.by, Deputy Director, Industrial Safety & Health, Villupuram. ... Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps./Complainant Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in C.C.Nos. 8 & 9 of 2014 on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.P.T.Ramadevi in both Crl.O.Ps. For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyaparaj Additional Public Prosecutor in both Crl.O.P.s C O M M O N O R D E R

¶9

These criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.Nos. 8 & 9 of 2014 on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram and quash the same.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent concede to the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶13

4.In view of the above, this Court directs the learned Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, to expedite the trial in C.C.Nos. 8 & 9 of 2014 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.

¶14

5.With the above directions, these criminal original petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶15

//True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

¶18

1.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram,

¶19

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

¶20

Crl.O.P.Nos.20689 & 20690 of 2014 and MP.Nos.1 & 1 of 2014 vg II[co] srg 16/03/2020

¶21

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

K.Arumugam, S/O.S.Kandan, v. the State Rep.by Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Arumugam, S/O.S.Kandan, v. the State Rep.by Deputy

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

Amutha Meenakshi, Vs State Byinspector of Police

Kotteeswaran Vs the State Rep.by

Aiyub Vs State Rep. by

N.Subash Vs State Rep. by

Dr.P.Sivasabaapathi, Vs the State Rep.by the Inspector

Aiyub Vs State Rep by