Disposed

P.E.Naveenkumar v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Madras HC4 Feb 2020CRL OP/29491/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras closed this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC initiated nearly seven years prior. Recording that no further order was necessary, the court disposed of the matter without further comment.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was closed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed, with no further order necessary.

P.E.Naveenkumar Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.29491 of 2013

¶6

1.P.E.Naveenkumar
2.S.V.Tamilselvan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (South),
At Villianur,
Puducherry.
2.State represented by:
The Station House Officer,
CBCID Police Station,
Puducherry.
3.Jai Ganesh
4.Krishnamoorthy
5.Gubendiran
6.K.Rajesh
7.Saravanan
8.Mani @ Manikandan
9.Kumar
10.Rajnish Rai
11.R.Madhiazhagan
12.R.Murali
13.S.Subramani
14.P.Ramesh ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer:

¶8

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in M.C.No.735 of 2011 on the file of the 1^st respondent so as to quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.M.C.Govindan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.Bharatha Chakaravarthy Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy)

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in M.C.No.735 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent so as to quash the same.

¶14

2.The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. during August, 2013.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., will have a bearing for some time. After a lapse of nearly seven years, the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., will no longer exist. Hence, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶16

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy) would submit that at the time of prevailing situation the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., was initiated. However, after a lapse of nearly seven years, they are not going to take any steps on the proceedings.

¶17

5.Recording the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy), this criminal original petition is closed since no further order is necessary.

¶18

6.This criminal original petition is accordingly closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶20

//True copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar pri

¶22

¶23

1.The Judicial Magistrate cum Land Grabbing Special Court II, Chennai.

¶24

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, (Team – 15A) Egmore, (now at Vepery) Chennai – 600 007.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

+2cc to Mr.M.C.Govindan, Advocate SR.No.8363

¶28

+1cc to O/o. Public Prosecutor, Puducherry SR.No.8880

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.29491 of 2013

¶30

RP(CO) GMY(28/02/2020)

¶31

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

P.E.Naveenkumar v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.E.Naveenkumar v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

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

K.Muthusamy Vs State Rep by

Anandbabu Vs the State Rep by

G.Geetha Vs C.Suresh

M.Mahalingam Vs Sri Radhakrishnan Sizin Mills

K.M.Noorjahan Vs the State Rep by

Mary Priyadarshini Samuel, Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by