Dismissed

R.Suriyagandhi v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC18 Nov 2021CRL OP/28097/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings due to delayed summons service. It directed the trial court to serve summons to accused A2 and A3 within three months and dispose of the case. Consequently, the connected petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; direction to Trial Court to serve summons to A2 and A3 within three months and decide the case; connected criminal miscellaneous petitions closed.

R.Suriyagandhi Vs the State Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.28097 OF 2019 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.15031 & 15032 OF 2019

¶6

R.Suriyagandhi ... Petitioner/1^st Accused

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Chennai. (Crime No.313 of 2002) (C.C.No.1703 of 2004 on the file of 17^th M.M.Court, Saidapet, Chennai)

¶9

... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶10

K.Selvaraj, Deputy Registrar (PDS), Triplicane - 2, Chennai - 600 005.

¶11

... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶12

PRAYER:-

¶13

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.1703 of 2004 on file of the 17^th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.C.P.Priya

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records in C.C.No.1703 of 2004 on file of the 17^th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that so far the Trail Court was not taken any steps to serve the summons and all these years the case is pending without any progress, thereby the petitioner is put to much hardships from the year 2004. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the daily status of the e-Court services reveals that on 04.10.2021, the case was taken by the Trial Court and for this petitioner (A1) petition under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., was filed, and there was no representation for A2 and A3 provided summons not served. Since, the stay was granted by this Court in this Criminal Original Petition, no further progress in that case.

¶20

Considering both submissions, now before the Trial Court it is ordered to issue summons to A2 and A3 and adjourned to 22.11.2021 as per the report submitted by the prosecution. Petitioner and 2 others are charged under Section 6(2)(3) of TNSA (RDCS) r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act and case take on file as C.C.No.1703 of 2004. Records reveals that summons were not properly served, without any progress, eversince the Court has taken cognizance of the matter. Hence, this Court directing the trial Court to take steps to serve summons to A2 and A3 in the manner known to law and within a period of three months directed to dispose the case.

¶21

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

rna/ham

¶27

¶28

The 17^th Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

¶29

Saidapet, Chennai.

¶30

The Inspector of Police,

¶31

Civil Supplies CID, Chennai.

¶32

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

¶33

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

+1cc to Ms.C.P.Priya, Advocate, S.R.No.59532

¶35

CRL.O.P.NO.28097 OF 2019

¶36

BS(CO) PBS/07/12/2021

¶37

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

R.Suriyagandhi v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Suriyagandhi 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

Saravanan Vs State Rep by

Ranjitha Vs State Rep by

A.Dayalan Vs the State Rep by

Vikram Agarwal Vs State Represented by

R.Karthick Vs State Rep by

S.Saravanaperumal Vs State Rep.by