Disposed

R.Krishnamoorthy v. the State Rep by

Madras HC1 Oct 2021CRL OP/17554/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner challenged a non-bailable warrant claiming he did not abscond. The bench directed surrender within two weeks, mandated the trial court to hear the case on merits after issuing notice to victims under Section 15-A(3) of the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks; trial court to deal with merits after issuing notice to victims.

R.Krishnamoorthy Vs the State Rep by — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.17554 OF 2021

¶6

R.Krishnamoorthy,
S/o. Raji

¶7

 ... Petitioner
Versus

¶8

State rep. by

¶9

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Athur Sub-Division,

¶10

 Salem Dt.

¶11

2. The Inspector of Police, Thammampatty Police Station, Salem Dt. (Crime No.158 of 2019)

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Principal District
Judge, Salem to recall the non-bailable warrant issued against
the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2021 dated 07.04.2021 on the
file of Principal District Court, Salem.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi

¶15

For Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja
 Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶18

 The petitioner/accused in Crime No.158 of 2019 for
offences under Sections 506(1), 420 I.P.C. r/w 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 would

¶19

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

¶20

submit that in the F.I.R., the first accused name was mentioned
as Moorthi of Ranganathapuram, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.
The petitioner was neither arrested nor there was any
apprehension of arrest. Hence, the petitioner has not obtained
any bail in this case. Thereafter, now the petitioner comes to
know that charge sheet filed, which was taken on file in
Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2021. In the charge sheet, on 06.03.2021 the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem taken the
case on file and issued non-bailable warrant to the petitioner
recording that A1 was absconding.

¶21

2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would
submit that the petitioner was very much available in the said
address and he never absconded. He would also submit that the
F.I.R. registered on 12.11.2019, the case was taken on file,
final report made ready on 10.06.2020 and cognizance was taken
on 06.03.2021. During this period, the petitioner was very much
available in the said address and he was not absconding.

¶22

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the respondents would submit that in this case,
learned Principal District Judge, Salem, on perusal of
materials, finding that the petitioner absconded, issued non-
bailable warrant. As per SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, notice ought to be given to the defacto
complainant/victim and to be heard in any petition. In view of
notice to be issued to the petitioner, he filed a petition
before the lower court seeking to recall non-bailable warrant.

¶23

4. In view of the amendments made in the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
this Court is of the view that the usual directions that were
issued by this Court cannot be issued routinely in all cases.
Therefore, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the
trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order or after commencement of normal
functioning of the Court, which ever is later and on such
surrender, the learned Principal District Judge, Salem shall
deal with the matter on the same day on merits and in accordance
with law, after issuing notice to the victims under Section 15-A
(3) of the SC/ST Act.

¶24

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

¶25

5. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with
the above directions.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

rpp/nr

¶31

To

¶32

1. The Principal District Judge, Salem. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Athur Sub-Division, Salem Dt. 3. The Inspector of Police, Thammampatty Police Station, Salem Dt. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, Advocate, S.R.No.51002

¶33

CRL.O.P.No.17554 of 2021

¶34

PMK(CO)
RLP(13/10/2021)

¶35

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

R.Krishnamoorthy v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Krishnamoorthy v. the 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

Venkatesh Sang Sani Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Selvam Vs the State Rep.by

J.Devika Vs Commissioner of Police

S.P.Moorthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohamed Shahid Vs Superintendent of Police

S. Kamaruddin Vs the Superintendent of Police