Disposed

G.Vijayakumar, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/4615/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition for transfer, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court examined allegations of a Bar Association resolution preventing the petitioner from engaging counsel. The court directed the trial court to appoint an Advocate for the petitioner immediately, summon remaining accused, and dispose of the case within four months. The petition is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to engage Advocate immediately; summon remaining accused; dispose of case within four months.

G.Vijayakumar, Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4615 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 08.12.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4615 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3249 of 2019

¶7

G.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.160 of 2018)

¶10

2.Justin Rhylas ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to transfer the case in STC.No.60 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai to Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor or any other competent Court outside Kanyakumari District. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Jeen Felix

¶12

For R1 : Mr.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶13

For R2 : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner, who is the third accused in STC.No.60 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, has filed the present petition seeking transfer of the above said case from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor or any other competent Court outside Kanyakumari District.

¶16

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the defacto complainant in this case is the practising Advocate before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai and due to the resolution passed by the Bar Association, the petitioner was not able to engage an Advocate, that no one was prepared to appear on his behalf and that therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to conduct the case with proper instructions.

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4615 of 2019

¶20

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 22.11.2021, this Court directed the Registry to get a report from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai as to whether any such resolution has been passed or whether any Advocate is appearing for this petitioner and with respect to the stage of the trial in the above said case.

¶21

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai has submitted a letter, dated 06.12.2021 wherein she has stated that on enquiry with the President and Secretary of the Bar Association, there was no such resolution passed by the Bar Association, that the case is pending for service of summons to the accused Nos.1 to 3 and that no Advocate is appearing on behalf of the petitioner, till now.

¶22

5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent has not indulged in restricting or preventing the petitioner from engaging the Advocate or proceeding with the case before the concerned Court.

¶23

6.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice if a direction is issued to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai to dispose of the case, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶24

7.Considering the submission made on behalf of both sides and without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the petitioner/3^rd accused to enter into appearance on the next hearing date and directs the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai to take necessary steps to serve summons on the remaining accused and after appearance of all the accused, shall proceed with the case and dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months thereafter.

¶25

8.With the above directions, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

gns

¶28

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ concerned.

¶29

2/3

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4615 of 2019

¶31

¶32

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,

¶33

Kuzhithurai.

¶34

2.The Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶35

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶36

Madurai.

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate ( SR-37870[F] dated 09/12/2021 )

¶38

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4615 of 2019

¶39

08.12.2021

¶40

MGJ(20.12.2021) 3P 5C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

G.Vijayakumar, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vijayakumar, v. the Inspector of Police

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

Lakshmi Narasu Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Karuppasamy, Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajamani Vs the Inspector of Police

K. Sivasubramanian Vs the Inspector of Police

Veeraiya Vs The inspector of police

Jeya Vs The Inspector of Police