Disposed

Venkatesh v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Feb 2020CRL OP/25313/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., directed the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, to expedite the trial of a pending case. The court dispensed with the petitioners' appearance for general proceedings but retained the right to call them for specific stages.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial and completion of proceedings as early as possible.

Venkatesh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.25313 of 2012 & 14667 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 & 1 of 2014

¶6

Venkatesh ... Petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.25313 of 2012
Rajagopal ... Petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.14667 of 2014
Vs.
1.The State rep. by,
Sub Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
(Crime No.155 of 2011)
2.C.R.Chandrasekar ... Respondents in all Crl.O.Ps
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to C.C.No.1380
of 2012 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Saidapet, Chennai and to quash the same as far as the petitioner.

¶7

For Petitioner : M/s.Shanmuga Sundaram for M/s.K.Vijayaraj

¶8

in Crl.O.P.No.25313/12 Mr.D.Veerasekaran in Crl.O.P.No.14667/14 For R1 : M/s.V.Saratha Devi Government Advocate [Crl. Side] in both Cases For R2 : M/s.S.Sathyamurthy in both Cases

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1380 of 2012, pending on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶12

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 petitioners before the Trial Court may be dispensed with and would further submit that the petitioner is ready to appear as and when necessary arise.

¶13

3.The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent concede to the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶14

4.In view of the above, this Court directs the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet to expedite the trial in C.C.No.1380 of 2012 and complete the same as early as possible. The appearance of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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.

¶15

5.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶16

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶21

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

¶22

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶23

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.D.Veerasekaran, Advocate Sr.8227
+1cc to Mr.Vijayaraj, Advocate Sr.8226
+1cc to Mr.Rajarajan, Advocate Sr.8688
Crl.O.P.Nos.25313 of 2012 & 14667 of 2014
ssi[co]
srg 03/03/2020

¶25

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

Venkatesh v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh v. the Sub 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

R.Sangeetha Vs M/S.Meenakshi Industries

K.Nagendran Vs State Rep. by

S.Srinivasan Vs State Inspector of Police

K.Muthusamy Vs State Rep by

Anandbabu Vs the State Rep by

G.Geetha Vs C.Suresh