Partly allowed

N.Harinath v. the Insector of Police

Madras HC3 Jan 2020CRL OP/3733/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court entertained a criminal original petition filed to call for records and quash proceedings in a criminal case. The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and dispensed with the petitioners' appearance, barring specific mandatory stages.

What did the court decide?

Court directed Trial Court to expedite trial; appearance of petitioners dispensed with except for sections 207, 313 Cr.P.C. and judgment.

N.Harinath Vs the Insector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.01.2020 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶3

Crl.O.P.No. 3733 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013

¶4

N.Harinath

¶5

K.Dayalan ... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State rep. by its, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruvallur District.

¶8

Selvi.D.Rani, D/o. (Late) Damodhara Pillai, No.55, Vallalar Street, Periya Kuppam, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in C.C.47 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruvallur and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.Chithramani For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Government Pleader for R1. O R D E R

¶11

The criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.47 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thiruvallur and to quash the same.

¶12

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 petitioners are ready to appear as and when necessary arise.

¶13

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

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent concede to the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶15

In view of the above, this Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thiruvallur, to expedite the trial in C.C.No.47 of 2011 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 judgement and as and when the Trial Court feels it necessary.

¶16

With the above directions, the criminal original petition
stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions, if any, are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
// True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kmm
To
1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Tiruvallur
2.The Inspector of Police,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
District Crime Branch,
Tiruvallur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
+1cc to Mr.B.Sundara Pandian, Advocate, SR.No.378.
Crl.O.P.No.3733 of 2013
and
Crl.M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013
CP(CO)
CSR:07.01.2020

¶17

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

N.Harinath v. the Insector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Harinath v. the Insector 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

E.Jayavel Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.G.L.Leathers Vs Aswin Traders

K.Babu Vs Jayabarat Hi

K.Balasubramaniyam Vs Nagamuthu (Died)

Mr.G.Swaminathan Vs Tmt.Malliga

Lakshmi Ammal Vs the Inspector Ofp Olice