Allowed

K.Nanadagopal Chetty v. Shivpprasadh

Madras HC9 Feb 2021CRL OP/21411/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge order quashes criminal proceedings against petitioners arrayed as accused in a defamation complaint. Relying on prior Division Bench orders finding statements non-defamatory, the Court held continuation of trial would constitute abuse of process and allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings in CC.No.5805 of 2006 pending before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

K.Nanadagopal Chetty Vs Shivpprasadh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.21411 of 2017

¶6

K.Nandagopal Chetty
2. D.N.Subramanian
3. Dilip Shah
4. Purushotaman ...Petitioners
Vs.
Shivprasadh ...Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., calling for the records in CC.No.5805 of 2006
pending trial before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishna
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER

¶7

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.5809 of 2006 pending on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

¶8

In this case, the petitioners have been arrayed as A7, A9, A11 and A14 in defamation complaint given by the respondent.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Crl.OP.No.5015 of 2008, dated 04.11.2019, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the very same complaint was considering the petition filed by A8 and found that the publication made against the respondent will not amount to defamatory statement. The Division Bench also took into consideration the earlier order passed in Crl.OP.No.1325 of 2008 dated 16.10.2014 wherein the petition filed by A7 in the very same complaint was quashed by this court.

¶10

The petitioners also stand in the same footing and the above orders will enure to the benefit to the petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of Court.

¶11

In the result, the proceedings in CC.No.5805 of 2006 pending before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶12

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rli
To
The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai
+1cc to Mr.K.P.Anantha, Advocate SR.No.7262
Crl.OP.No.21411 of 2017
NRL(CO)
KKV/05/03/2021

¶13

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

K.Nanadagopal Chetty v. Shivpprasadh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nanadagopal Chetty v. Shivpprasadh

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

M.Aysha Parveen Vs The Home Secretary

Rani Vs State by Its

Alaka Mishra Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Pavunkumar Vs State Represented by

A.Senthilkumar, M/A-36 Vs State Rep. by

Indira Priyatharshini @ Vs State through