Dismissed

Krishnan, M/a 65 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC6 Dec 2021CRL OP/21138/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings due to alleged false case. The Court held that case and counter case for the same occurrence must be tried simultaneously and refused quashing but dispensed with petitioners' personal appearance to reduce witness harassment.

What did the court decide?

Personal appearance of petitioners dispensed with except for section 207, 313 CrPC reading of charge-sheet copies; connected petitions closed and ordered respectively.

Krishnan, M/a 65 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.21138 of 2017

¶6

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.12482 and 12483 of 2017

¶8

Krishnan

¶9

Govindammal ... Petitioners/Accused 1&2

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Anaicut Police Station, Vellore District. ...1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶12

Rajagopal ...2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.388 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners: Mr.E.Kannadasan

¶15

For Respondents: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar- R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) No appearance - R2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The present Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in C.C.No.388 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore and quash the final report filed against the petitioners under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506 (i) of IPC.

¶18

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire case is a result of a false case and there is a counter case registered against the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant in Crime No.83 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, which is taken on file in C.C.No.387 of 2016 by the same learned magistrate and the same is pending.

¶19

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

¶20

Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for 1^st respondent. Though notice was ordered to the 2^nd respondent as early as on 09.10.2017, served on the 2^nd respondent on 01.11.2017 and his name being printed in the cause-list, there is no representation on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, either in-person or through learned counsel.

¶21

It is well settled that case and counter case registered due to the same occurrence, should be tried simultaneously by the same learned Magistrate. In such view of the matter, both the cases, viz., C.C.Nos.388 of 2016 and 387 of 2016 shall be disposed of by the same learned Magistrate, viz., learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore simultaneously.

¶22

Accordingly, considering the nature of charges, particularly with regard to the causing of physical injury on the witnesses, this Court is not inclined to quash the entire proceedings, hence the present Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the personal appearance of the petitioners are dispensed with, except for receiving the copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and on any other date, that may be fixed by the trial court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, viz., Crl.M.P.No.12482 of 2017 is closed and Crl.M.P.No.12483 of 2017 is ordered.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

ssd

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore.

¶30

-do through- The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.

¶31

The Inspector of Police, Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶32

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

¶33

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.E.Kannadasan, Advocate, S.R.No.64537

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.21138 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.12482 and 12483 of 2017

¶36

KSM[co] NSK 22/12/2021

¶37

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

Krishnan, M/a 65 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan, M/a 65 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

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

K.P.Sainaba, Aged 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Ponnupappa F/a 52 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Gowtham Chand Sethiya, Vs the State Rep. by

R. Vinayagamurthy, Vs Seeyathammal

P.Thamizh, Aged 32 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Vetri Alias Vetri Murugesan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu