Dismissed

R.Subramanian v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC29 Mar 2022CRL OP/1175/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings at the Pre-Recorded Statement (P.R.C.) stage. The Court refused to quash the case, directing the petitioner to approach the trial Court regarding the disputed presence and charge framing.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to move the trial Court; quashing of proceedings in P.R.C.No.9 of 2014 not granted.

R.Subramanian Vs the State Rep by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1175 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.767 of 2019

¶6

R.Subramani S/o. Ramasamy ...Petitioner/Accused No.5 Vs.

¶7

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station,

¶8

Tiruppur District. ...Respondents/Complainant

¶9

V.Jothimani

¶10

W/o.Vijayakumar ...Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, prayed to call for the records in P.R.C.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 at Tiruppur and quash same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 at Tiruppur.

¶16

2.Mr.K.Myilsamy,learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as per charge sheet, the Petitioner herein is shown as absconding Accused. In the typed set, he has furnished a document stating that he was in Raipur on the date of occurrence. Further, he also furnished flight ticket and work order and copy of the charges framed by the trial Court. If the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is to be accepted, he ought to have argued for discharge of the Accused before the trial Court. Previously, Charges used to be framed

¶17

mechanically by the trial Court. Now, based on the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the learned trial Judges through out Tamil Nadu had been given training in the Judicial Academy regarding the importance of framing of charges. The learned trial Judges shall hear the arguments of the Prosecutor as well as defence before proceeding with framing of charges.

¶18

3.Here the learned counsel relies on the charges as in the charge sheet by the learned Judicial Magistrate at the stage of PRC Case, pretrial stage before committal by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the case is only at P.R.C. Stage and it is a fit case for consideration by the trial Court. By exercising its discretion by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,,it cannot be quashed. Hence, the learned counsel for the Petitioner is permitted to move the case before the trial Court.

¶19

With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

To:

¶22

The Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur.

¶23

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur.

¶24

The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur District.

¶25

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶26

+1cc to M/s.K.Myilsamy, Advocate, S.R.No.20938

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.1175 of 2019

¶28

SKM(CO) RGA(19/04/2022)

R.Subramanian v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Subramanian v. the State Rep by Its

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

M.Ilangovan Vs the State Rep by

P.Asirvatham Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Jeyandran Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Chitra Vs the State Rep Byi Ts

Banumathi Vs the Insepctor of Police

N.a.Mohideen Kapoor Vs State by