Dismissed

Manikandan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC12 Apr 2022CRL OP/1255/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court denied quashing of a charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC in a case and counter-case scenario where trials had already commenced. The Court directed the Judicial Magistrate to conclude trials within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to proceed with trial in both cases and dispose within three months; quash plea dismissed.

What the court decided

Manikandan Vs State Rep.by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1255 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.792 of 2019

1.Manikandan

2.Sivanandan

3.Govindan

4.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.State rep. by Inspector of Police, Thirukovilur Police Station, Thirukovilur.

¶12

2.Murugan ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records pertaining to the C.C.No.27 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gokulakrishnan For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate(Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Gnanamoorthy for Mr.N.Suresh

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash C.C.No.27 of 2016 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur.

¶17

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

¶18

On 29.03.2022, when the case came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that for the same occurrence there had been case and counter case. The case and counter case had been investigated and two charge sheets had been filed before the same Court viz., learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.27 of 2016 as it is laid before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate ignoring the Police Standing Order No.588-A, wherein the Investigation Officer is authorized to investigate and find out, who is the real victim and who is the real aggressor. Instead ignoring the said provisions of Police Standing Order, the Investigation Officer had filed two final reports before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.27 of 2016 as it is violative of the said Police Standing Order, wherein these petitioners are accused, whereas they are the original victim. Therefore, this Court sought remarks from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur regarding the charge sheets pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur.

¶19

Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate had offered his remarks. From the remarks, it is found that the FIR had been registered based on the direction of the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram in Crl.M.P.No.2650 of 2015, dated 07.05.2015. On the basis of the FIR registered on the direction of the learned Sessions Judge, investigation proceeded accordingly in case and counter case. FIR in both cases and final report laid in case and counter case had been taken on file in C.C.No.27 of 2016 for the offences in Crime No.155 of 2015 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC of Thirukovilur Police Station, wherein final report filed in C.C.No.27 of 2016 on 18.01.2016.

¶20

Similarly, for the FIR in Crime No.156 of 2015 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC of Thirukovilur Police Station, final report filed on 12.01.2016 as C.C.No.28 of 2016. In C.C.No.27 of 2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate had examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked exhibits viz., Exb.P1 to Exb.P3. In C.C.No.28 of 2016, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined.

¶21

Under those circumstances, when both the charge sheets had been taken on file and trial had commenced and pending part heard, the charge sheet in C.C.No.27 of 2016 cannot at all be quashed. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur is directed to proceed with the trial in both the cases and dispose of the same within a reasonable period of three months.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

¶30

1.The Inspector of Police, Thirukovilur Police Station, Thirukovilur. 2.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur. 3.Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram. 4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate, S.R.No.25729 Crl.O.P.No.1255 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.792 of 2019

¶31

KK(CO) SB(05/05/2022)

¶32

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

Manikandan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Manikandan 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

M/S.Krish Homes Vs Syed Mohammed Javeed

Boopalan Vs the State Rep by Its

G.Jeyan Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Rajendra Babu Vs State Represented by

Mohamed Arif Vs State Rep.by

N.Baaskaran Vs State by