Dismissed

S.Selvaraj v. S.Selvakumar

Madras HC1 Oct 2021CRL OP/24802/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of trial and expedited disposal, the Court held the grounds were factual and required evidence appreciation, declining jurisdictional interference. However, the petition was disposed of by directing the Trial Court to expedite the trial and dispensing with the petitioner's counsel appearance for most proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case expeditiously; dispensed with the petitioner's counsel appearance for most proceedings.

S.Selvaraj Vs S.Selvakumar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.24802 of 2018

¶6

Selvaraj

¶7

Vs.

¶8

S.Selvakumar.. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamund,
Nilgiris to expedite the trial in in STC. No.894 of 2013 and
complete the same in a stipulated time as may be fixed by this
Court.

¶10

For Petitioner: Mr.J.Bharathiraja

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.C.E.Pratap
 Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to call
for the entire records in STC. No.894 of 2013, on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamund, Nilgiris and quash the
same.

¶14

2. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, however, this Court is of the opinion
the issue is a triable issue and the grounds raised by the
counsel for the petitioner are all factual in nature and it
requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide
the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioner to
raise all the grounds before the Court and the same shall be
considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This

¶15

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

¶16

Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending
before the Court below.

¶17

3.It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for

¶18

the petitioner that this Court may issue a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial and complete the same as early as possible. He would further submit that the appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.

¶19

4. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of directing

¶20

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamund, The Nilgiris to dispose of STC.No.894 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible as per seniority of the case. The petitioner and respondent are directed to co-operate with the trial court for the early completion of trial. Further, taking into consideration the request as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, his appearance before the trial court is dispensed with except for their appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the presence of the petitioner is necessary, the trial court, at its wisdom, shall direct their appearance on those days. Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

 Sub Assistant Registrar
rli

¶24

To

¶25

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamund, Nilgiris.

¶26

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

¶27

+1cc to M/s.J.Bharathiraja, Advocate, S.R.No.52077

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.24802 of 2018

¶29

KJ(CO)
SB(27/10/2021)

¶30

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

S.Selvaraj v. S.Selvakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Selvaraj v. S.Selvakumar

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.Veerakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Annaiyappa Vs State Rep.by

Pramoth Kuttan Vs Inspector of Police

S.Balaji Vs Union Territory of Puducherry Rep by

Ohm Srinivasa Paper Board Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Varalakshmi Starch Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Abdul Aleem Vs the State Represented by