Disposed

Madhu Vasudevan v. State Rep by

Madras HC29 Mar 2021CRL OP/6110/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.O.P. No.6110 of 2021, the Madras High Court directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to scrutinize a Power of Attorney document to ascertain if it specifically authorized the agent to prosecute, and if so, to entertain the petitioner's protest petition regarding a dropped case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Court below to scrutinize the Power of Attorney and entertain the protest petition if specifically authorized.

Madhu Vasudevan Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.03.2021 CORAM

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶3

Crl.O.P.No.6110 of 2021

¶4

Madhu Vasudevan

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.
1. State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch – 2,
Vepery, Chennai
2. Rema Vasudevan
3. Harish Kathuria
4. Mini Kathuria
5. T.Ravindran
6. R.Sulochana Janaki ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the Metropolitan Magistrate CCB & CBCID, Egmore to accept the protest petition filed by the petitioner herein as in the capacity of Special Power of Attorney of Defacto Complainant in the case in Crime No.108 of 2018 on the file of respondent.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

O R D E R This Criminal Original petition has been filed for a direction to the Court below to accept the protest petition filed by the petitioner through his Power of Attorney Agent.

¶10

It is seen from records that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and based on his complaint, an FIR was registered in Crime No.108 of 2018 by the respondent police. On completion of the investigation, a closure report was filed as

¶11

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

¶12

further action dropped after serving an RCS notice on the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner aggrieved by the same, has filed a protest petition before the Court below through his Power of Attorney Agent. The petitioner is said to be residing in USA and therefore, he is not in a position to prosecute the case in person and hence, the petitioner has filed this protest petition through his power of attorney agent. The grievance of the petitioner is that this petition has not been accepted by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶14

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the Court below to scrutinize the Power of Attorney document and if the same specifically authorizes the agent to prosecute the case on behalf of the petitioner, the same shall be entertained and the Court below shall proceed further to deal with the protest petition strictly in accordance with law.

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the
above directions.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rka
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch – 2,
Vepery, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
3. The Metropolitan Magistrate CCB & CBCID, Egmore.
+1cc to Mr.S.Ramasamy, Advocate, S.R.No.20419.
Crl.O.P.No.6110 of 2021
GSM(CO)
CSR 30.03.2021

¶16

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

Madhu Vasudevan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Vasudevan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Seema Vs State by

Rani Vs The Director of Prosecution (i/c)

R.H.Annadurai Vs State Rep.by

Jaya Mohan Vs State Rep.by

Lalitha Vs The Superintendent of police

B.Kavitha Vs The Superintendent of Police