Dismissed

Ramakrishna, A-2, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC28 Jun 2021CRL OP/5021/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash proceedings where the grounds were factual, directing the trial court to complete the trial expeditiously on a day-to-day basis with guidelines to ensure speedy disposal.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in C.C.NO.26/2017 as expeditiously as possible.

Ramakrishna, A-2, Vs State Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.5021 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.06.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.5021 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No.2506 & 2507/2018
1.Ramakrishna
2.B.RAjesh ... Petitioners
Vs.
State rep.by
Inspector of Police,
GRP Podhanur Police Station,
Podhanur.
Cr.No.185/2016 ... Respondent
Prayer:

¶7

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the final report in C.C.NO.26/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Thirumaran For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶9

1/6

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.5021 of 2018

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking to call for the records

¶14

and to quash the final report in C.C.NO.26/2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that when the driver of the tipper lorry, after unloading blue metals for on-going railway project, reversing the lorry from the east side to the west side in a careless manner, it ran over on the defacto complainant's child. The child had died. Hence, the defacto complainant had lodged a police complaint. An FIR was registered and a Charge Sheet was also filed in C.C.NO.26/2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that they

¶17

were the railway contractors and they were no way connected with the alleged offence and prays for quashment of C.C.NO.26/2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that

¶19

2/6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.5021 of 2018

¶22

this issue involves adjudication on disputed question of facts and therefore, if some outer time limit is given, the Criminal Case may be given disposal as early as possible.

¶23

The grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner are all

¶24

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 petitioners to raise all the grounds before the Court below and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere

¶25

with the proceedings pending before the Court below.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to

¶27

dispense with the presence of the petitioners. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, they are examined in Chief. The petitioners shall be present before the Court below at the time of

¶28

3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.5021 of 2018

¶31

questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing of the final judgement.

¶32

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a

¶33

direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in C.C.NO.26/2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore, as expeditiously as possible. The trial shall be conducted on a day to d ay basis in accordance with the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 SC] . If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial Court to insist upon the presence of the petitioners and remand him to custody as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH (JT 2001 (4) SC 3191) .

¶34

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

28.06.2021

¶36

¶37

Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No

¶38

¶39

4/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.5021 of 2018

¶42

1.Inspector of Police, GRP Podhanur Police Station, Podhanur.

¶43

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

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶45

5/6

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.5021 of 2018

¶47

M.DHANDAPANI,J. sk

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.5021 of 2018
28.06.2021

¶49

6/6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Ramakrishna, A-2, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna, A-2, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Jayapradha Vs Mariappan

N.Sachidanandam, Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.K.Rajendrakumar, Vs Chelvi @ Chelvi Raja @ Chelvi

C.Rajendran Vs State Rep. by Its

Narasimman Vs Inspector of Police

Duraisamy Vs Inspector of Police