Remanded

Manimaran v. State Rep.by

Madras HC21 Apr 2021CRL OP/7312/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings but directed the trial court to complete the trial within one month due to a three-year delay, warning the court that failure to comply would permit taking the petitioner into custody.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to complete trial within one month; police permitted to take petitioner into custody for delayers.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.04.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7312 of 2021

¶6

Manimaran

¶7

...Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.State rep by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Sethiathopu, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.1 of 2011)

¶10

2.S.Rajalakshmi ... Respondents/Complainants

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the charges and proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2013 against Crime No.1 of 2011, pending on the file of the Hon'ble District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Kattumanarkoil, Cuddalore District, and quash the same.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr.B.Gandhi

¶13

For respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the charges and proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2013 against Crime No.1 of 2011, pending on the file of the Hon'ble District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Kattumanarkoil, Cuddalore District, and quash the same.

¶17

2.The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.103 of 2013 for the offence under Section 417 IPC and r/w 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of the Women Harassment Act-2002.

¶18

3.The contention of the petitioner is that for the past one year trial has not been commenced and the petitioner has been facing harassment. He further submit that the defacto complainant admits that she has already been married; got a child and she is living separately from her husband. The petitioner herein has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶19

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Witnesses have been examined and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the trial has progressed. On 09.03.2017, prosecution side

¶20

witnesses have been closed. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., and it is posted for arguments before the trial Court on 26.04.2021. Further, he would submit that the respondent police taking all steps to complete the trial as early as possible.

¶21

5.It is seen from the records that prosecution side evidence has been completed and closed. Now the case stands posted for defence side witnesses, if any. Till today, the case has been adjourned at the instance of the petitioner for one reason or the other and successfully protracting the case.

¶22

6.Considering the above submissions and the case is of the year 2011, C.C.Number is of the year 2013, prosecution side evidence has been closed as early as in the year 2018 itself and it is pending for defence side witnesses for the past three years, this Court is inclined to direct the trial Court to complete the trial.

¶23

7.Accordingly, the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Kattumanarkoil, Cuddalore District, is directed to complete the trial within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner adopts dilatory tactics, the respondent police are at liberty to take the petitioner on custody and complete the trial. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

Jer

¶27

¶28

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Court of Kattumanargudi, Cuddalore District.

¶29

2.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Sethiathopu Cuddalore District.

¶30

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.7312 of 2017

¶32

KJ(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GN(04/06/2021)

Manimaran v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manimaran 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

K.Shanmugam Vs the State Rep by

Mrs.Corolin Vs State Rep by

Gold Rafi @ Syed Rafi Basha Vs State Rep by

R.Sasikala Vs State Rep by

R.Rani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by

Gold Rafiq @ Syed Rafi Basha Vs the State Rep by