Dismissed

G.v.Nagaraj v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Mar 2021CRL OP/5181/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the CPLR petition to quash the charge sheet, holding that factual grounds require appreciation by the trial court. It directed the lower court to conclude the trial within three months following speedy trial guidelines and to require the petitioner's presence at specific stages.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition disposed of with direction to Court below to complete proceedings within three months and to conduct trial day-to-day.

G.v.Nagaraj Vs Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.03.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.5181 OF 2021 AND CRL.M.P.NO.3327 OF 2021

¶6

G.V.Nagaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thammampatty Police Station,
Salem.
2. Sengottuvel ... Respondents
Prayer :
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the
charge sheet filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.363 of 2020
pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Karthika
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
ORDER

¶7

This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 436 and 506(2) of IPC.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, they are examined in Chief. The petitioner shall be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing of the final judgement.

¶11

4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in C.C.No.363 of 2020 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial shall be conducted on a day to day 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 petitioner 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). Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssr To 1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem. 2. Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 3. The Inspector of Police, Thammampatty Police Station, Salem. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras CRL.O.P No.5181 of 2021 and Crl.M.P No.3327 of 2021 SKY(CO) CS/09/07/2021

¶12

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

G.v.Nagaraj v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.v.Nagaraj v. Inspector of Police

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

R.Vasanthi Vs State by

Periyar Selvam Vs The Superintendent of police

Balasubramanian (A2) Vs State Rep by

Kasi City Park Vs Pankaj Kumar Bansal IAS

M/s Aruna Theaters and Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pankaj Kumar Bansal IAS

Kiran @ Kiran Sai Vs State Rep by