Disposed

C.M.Sabarinath, M/A.23 Years v. the State Rep by

Madras HC8 Jul 2021CRL OP/5407/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that factual grounds raised in a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. require evidence appreciation and cannot be decided here. The Court instead directed the police to expedite the trial and complete investigation within six months before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent police to expedite trial and complete investigation within six months.

C.M.Sabarinath, M/A.23 Years Vs the State Rep by — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.5407 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.5407 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No.2657 of 2018
C.M.Sabarinath ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
C-2, Race Course Police Station,
Coimbatore. (Cr.No.21/2018)
2.J.Kalaiyarasi ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records in Cr.NO.21 of 2018 on the file of the respondent and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Premkumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶7

1/4

¶8

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

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.5407 of 2018

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to call for the records in

¶12

Cr.NO.21 of 2018, on the file of the respondent and quash the same.

¶13

The grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner are all factual

¶14

in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot

¶15

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 Investigating Officer and the same shall be considered on its own

¶16

merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere

¶17

with the proceedings pending before the 1^st respondent Police.

¶18

3.It is now represented by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶19

petitioners that without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice, if

¶20

this Court issues direction to the law enforcing agency to expedite the

¶21

investigation and complete the same as early as possible.

¶22

4.In view of the above, this Court directs the 1^st respondent Police, to

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.5407 of 2018

¶26

expedite the trial in C.r.No.21 of 2018 and complete the same, within a

¶27

period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

5.With the above directions, this criminal original petition is disposed

¶29

of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶30

08.07.2021
sk
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
C-2, Race Course Police Station,
Coimbatore.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.

¶31

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.5407 of 2018

¶35

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.5407 of 2018

¶37

08.07.2021

¶38

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

¶39

4/4

C.M.Sabarinath, M/A.23 Years v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M.Sabarinath, M/A.23 Years v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Ravanan Vs State Rep by

G.Bala M/46 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

Pushpha Rani, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Chockalingam Vs the State Rep by

Sundaresan Vs the State Rep by

Chandran Mylapore Eswaran Vs the State Represented by