Dismissed

M.P.Purushothaman, M/Aged v. State Rep by

Madras HC15 Dec 2021CRL OP/12318/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition challenging the maintenance of a charge sheet for an offence under the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishment Act, 1958. The Court held that factual disputes regarding the petitioner's role require trial and refused to quash the proceedings at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition is dismissed but the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with; the trial court must decide the matter expeditiously.

M.P.Purushothaman, M/Aged Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.12318 OF 2017 & CRL.M.P.NOS.8045 & 8046 OF 2017

M.P.Purushothaman

... Petitioner

The State rep. by K.Bhuvaneshwari, Sub Inspector of Labour, Circle No.18, Chennai – 600 015.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.1755 of 2016 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.1755 of 2016 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 23(3) of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishment Act, 1958.

¶15

The only contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the present petitioner/A3 was not in charge of the company at the relevant point of time and in this regard resolution was also passed by the Board of Directors of the

¶16

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

¶17

Empee Hotel Ltd. on 27.11.2015. Therefore, the present petitioner cannot be prosecuted.

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

This Court is of the view that the Resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors on 27.11.2015 itself has to be established before the trial Court and these are all factual aspects. Mainly based on the statement of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, entire proceedings cannot be quashed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of the Court, to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner. Taking note of the charges against accused that it will attract only fine, this Court is inclined to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court.

¶20

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The trial Court shall decide the matter expeditiously. In view of the submissions made the learned counsel for the petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with except for any dates fixed by the trial Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

vrc / kbs

¶26

¶27

The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. Do Through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶28

Egmore, Chennai. 3. The Sub Inspector of Labour, Circle No.18,

¶29

Chennai – 600 015. 4. The Public Prosecutor,

¶30

High Court, Madras.

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.12318 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.8045 & 8046 of 2017

¶32

RLD(CO) RLP(20/12/2021)

¶33

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

M.P.Purushothaman, M/Aged v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Purushothaman, M/Aged v. State Rep by

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

C.Owen Joseph Gilbanks, Vs Shanmugam

K.Kalappa, M/A-62 Vs S.Ramesh

G.Suchithra, Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Pushpa Vs G.Mahalakshmi

B.Venkatraman, 32 Yrs, Vs Statae Rep by

Prabavathy, Aged 54 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police