Dismissed

T.C.Harinath v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Mar 2022CRL OP/12494/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed by petitioners. Upon hearing, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petitions. The High Court dismissed both petitions as withdrawn and directed the lower court to dispose of the related case within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed as withdrawn; lower court directed to dispose of connected case within four months.

T.C.Harinath Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.12494 and 23561 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.11075, 11076 and 6426 of 2016

¶6

T.C.Harinath ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P No.12494 of 2016

¶7

Mrs.S.Anitha ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P No.23561 of 2016

¶8

¶9

State by

¶10

The Inspector of Police, P-5, MKB Nagar Police Station, Vyasarpadi,

¶11

Chennai – 600 039.

¶12

T.K. Srinivasan ... Respondents in both the petitions

¶13

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.14425 of 2008 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

¶14

These petitions are filed to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.14425 of 2008 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai

¶15

The case came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent/T.K.Srinivasan.

¶16

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

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and after hearing at length, when this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petitions. He has also made endorsement in the petitions.

¶18

Considering the fact that the parties are closely related and some of them are advocates, this Court permits the petitioner to withdraw the petitions. Accordingly, both the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. The Court below is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.14425 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶22

//True copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

¶26

X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai

¶27

+1cc to Mrs.T.K.S.Bharathy Shri, Advocate SR.No.14907

¶28

Crl.O.P.Nos.12494 and 23561 of 2016

¶29

GP(CO) GMY(18/03/2022)

¶30

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

T.C.Harinath v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.C.Harinath v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvam Sadaiyapillai Vs Inspector of Police

M.Anbu Vs J.Indira

Bharanidharan, Aged 34 Years Vs the Protection Officer

B. Jaikumar Vs the State Rep. by

Kishor Kharat Vs Superintendent of Police

V.Jayaraj Vs State of Tamil Nadu