Dismissed

Philip Mani Modayil, v. State

Madras HC2 Sept 2021CRL RC/428/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed eight criminal revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. The court held that the petitions did not survive for consideration because a stay order granted in a connected quash petition extinguished the underlying criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed; the petitions were closed as the underlying proceedings were stayed in the quash petition.

Philip Mani Modayil, Vs State — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.Nos.428 to 435 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3961 to 3968 of 2017

¶6

Philip Mani Modayil .. Petitioner in Crl.Rc.No.428 of 2017 Gladstone John Wilson .. Petitioner in Crl.Rc.No.429 of 2017 Sathiadas Samuel Nadar .. Petitioner in Crl.Rc.No.430 of 2017 Moses Jaya Kumar .. Petitioner in Crl.Rc.No.431 of 2017 Devasahayam Tsoudury .. Petitioner in Crl.Rc.No.432 of 2017 Joy Mecdonald Richard .. Petitioner in Crl.Rc.NO.433 of 2017 Vimal Sukumar Sugundhar Bodda .. Petitioner in Crl.Rc.No.434 of 2017 Joy Mecdonald Richar .. Petitioner in Crl.Rc.No.435 of 2017

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State; The Deputy Registrar of Companies, Tamilnadu, having office at Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondent in Crl.RC.No.428 to 435 of 2017

¶9

PRAYER : Petitions filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 16.11.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2201, 2205, 2206, 2203, 2204, 2209, 2207, 2202 of 2016 in E.O.CC.No.16 of 2014, 16/14, 16/14, 16/14, 16/14, 17/14, 16/14, 16/14 respectively and direct the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cum Economic Offences Court-II, Egmore to receive the Crl.M.P.No.2201, 2205, 2206, 2203, 2204, 2209, 2207, 2202 of 2016 in E.O.C.C.No.16 of 2014, 16/14, 16/14, 16/14,

¶10

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

¶11

16/14, 17/14, 16/14, 16/14 respectively and recall the warrant without insisting the appearance of the petitioner/acused.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar in all the Petitioners

¶13

For Respondent : Mr. Venkataswamy Babu in All the Petitioners

¶14

The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted tha t as against the main E.O.C.C.Nos.16 & 17 of 2014 respectively, they have filed a quash petition. In the said quash petition, stay has been granted. Hence, nothing survives in this criminal revision case.

¶16

3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives for consideration and accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶19

// True Copy //

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23

1.The Deputy Registrar of Companies, Shastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶24

2.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cum Economic Offences Court-II, Egmore.

¶25

Crl.R.C.Nos.428 to 435 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3961 to 3968 of 2017

¶26

PA(CO)

¶27

CB(03/12/2021)

¶28

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

Philip Mani Modayil, v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Philip Mani Modayil, v. State

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

Akthar @ Akthar Basha Vs State by

S.Vishwanathan Vs J.Mamalai

Sofia Rani Vs Lawrance

Moses Jaya Kumar, Vs State

Gunalan Subbhaiyan Vs Tamilarasi

M.Devendaran, Aged 60 Years, Vs State Rep. by