Disposed

Mrs.Meenakshi v. Premkumar

Madras HC14 Oct 2020CRL OP(MD)/11396/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure the respondent's presence. It directed that the respondent may appear via video conferencing for trial proceedings and Section 313 examination, while physical presence remains mandatory for pronouncing the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to appear via video conferencing for trial and Section 313 examination, with physical presence only for pronouncing judgment.

Mrs.Meenakshi Vs Premkumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.11396 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.10.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P(MD)No.11396 of 2020

¶4

Mrs.Meenakshi

¶5

Petitioner/Complainant

¶6

¶7

Premkumar Respondent/Accused

¶8

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the presence of the respondent/accused in each hearing of the above CC No.51/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramamoorthi

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

2.Considering the nature of relief to be granted, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶13

3.The respondent herein along with another filed Crl.OP(MD) No.7278 of 2016 for quashing the proceedings in CC No.51 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai. The said Original Petition was partly allowed vide order dated 20.11.2019. The proceedings were quashed as regards the petitioner No. 2 and dismissed as regards the respondent herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is continuously absenting himself in the trial. Therefore, the petitioner wants this Court to issue appropriate direction. Section 483 of Cr.P.C reads that

¶14

''Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.''

¶15

4.The petitioner's counsel states that the case was filed in the year 2012. It cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Of course, the quash petition was filed in the year 2016 and for over three years, due to the pendency of the case, the proceedings could not be commenced. But the Original Petition was disposed of on 20.11.2019. I had taken note of the fact that COVID-19 pandemic has not only struck India, but also the world. Travelling from U.S to India has beome impossible for several months. But, the respondent can very well appear through video conferencing also. I am more concerned about the progress of the trial. Physical appearance of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/2

¶17

Crl.O.P(MD)No.11396 of 2020

¶18

respondent may not really be necessary. The respondent can appear before the Court below through video conferencing. I had earlier stated that the petitioner has to appear to answer the charge and for examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and at the time of pronouncing judgment. This is modified and the respondent can appear through video conferencing to answer the charge and also to answer the questions posed during the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Of course, the direction to appear before the Court below at the time of pronouncing orders cannot be relaxed for any reason. The Court below shall give opportunity to the respondent to appear through video conferencing. If the respondent fails to avail the offer, the Court below shall necessarily initiate appropriate coercive action.

¶19

5.With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶20

vrn

¶21

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶22

Copy to:

¶23

The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai.

¶24

+1 CC to M/s.P.M. VISHNUVARTHANAN, Advocate ( SR-20264[F] dated 15/10/2020 )

¶25

Crl.O.P(MD)No.11396 of 2020

¶26

14.10.2020

¶27

SRK(CO) NR (29/10/2020) 2P : 3C

¶28

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

¶29

2/2

Mrs.Meenakshi v. Premkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Meenakshi v. Premkumar

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

Jahir Hussain Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Prabhakaran Vs The Superintendent of police

Uthayasuriyan Vs The Inspector of Police

The Superintendent of Police Vs Liyakath Alikhan

Sabapathi Vs The Superintendent of police

Lingadurai Vs The Inspector of Police