Dismissed

V.Rajendran v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC2 Dec 2020CRL OP(MD)/11814/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Madurai dismissed a Crl.O.P filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash special proceedings upon permission granted for withdrawal of the petition. Appearing counsel withdrew the plea, and defenses were left open without examination.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the petition; Criminal Original Petition dismissed as withdrawn.

V.Rajendran Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.11814 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.11814 of 2020

1.V.Rajendran

2.M.Selvaraju

3.B.Venkatachalam

4.B.K.Rajendran

5.M.Ravi

6.S.Chandrasekar

7.P.Mohammed Salim

8.P.Chandrasekaran

9.S.Manimuthu

10.A.Farook Ali

11.H.Sundar

12.M.Ponnurangam

13.T.Rengaraj ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 13

¶20

Vs.

¶21

State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Trichy in Cr.No.5 of 2015 ... Respondent/Respondent

¶22

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in relating to Spl.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court for PC cases, Tiruchirappalli and quash the same.

¶23

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

¶24

1/3

¶25

Crl.O.P(MD)No.11814 of 2020

¶26

For Petitioners: Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners wants this Court to permit him to withdraw this petition. Permission is granted.

¶29

2.This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. I make it clear that the defences of the petitioners have not been gone into and they are entirely left open.

¶30

3.Considering the facts and circumstances, the personal appearance of the petitioners herein before the Court below is dispensed with. The petitioners need to appear only on those occasions when their personal appearance is necessary and imperative, such as, to answer the questions, during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and again at the time of pronouncement of Judgment. Of-course, the petitioners shall file an affidavit before the trial Court that they would not dispute the identity of the witnesses.

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶33

rmi

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

1.The Special Judge, Special Court of P.C.Cases, Tiruchirappalli.

¶37

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

¶38

2/3

¶39

Crl.O.P(MD)No.11814 of 2020

¶40

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Trichy.

¶41

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶42

+1cc to Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate Sr.No.23846

¶43

Crl.O.P(MD)No.11814 of 2020

¶44

02.12.2020

¶45

MJ (CO) NR (09/02/2021) 3P : 5C

¶46

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

¶47

3/3

V.Rajendran v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rajendran v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Superintendet of Central Excise (Legal) Vs The Inspector of Police

Rajan Vs Devadasan

S.Rajeswari Vs v.Ponnusamy

X. Victor De Rose Vs The Deputy Superintendent of police

M.Mani Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Jerold Vs the Superintendent of Police