Dismissed

A.Nainar Kani v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Apr 2022CRL OP/1508/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed two competing Criminal Original Petitions filed by brothers to quash mutual criminal cases. Mediation failed to produce an amicable settlement, and the Court held that proceeding with the trial to prevent further delay and abuse of court process was in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed; the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial.

A.Nainar Kani Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.1508 & 5623 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.978, 979, 3191 & 3192 of 2019

¶6

1.A.Nainar Kani

¶7

2.A.Syed Abuthakir

¶8

3.Abdul Kathar ...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 in Crl.O.P.No.1508/2019

¶9

1.Jamal Mohamed

¶10

2.Rafeek

¶11

3.Cheeni Adbulla Kani

¶12

4.Meeran Mydeen

¶13

5.Abdulla

¶14

6.Mohamed Yasin ...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 6 in Crl.O.P.No.5623/2019 Vs.

¶15

State

¶16

The Inspector of Police B-2, Esplanade Police Station

¶17

Chennai 600 001. ...1^st Respondent/Complainant in both Crl.O.P.Nos.1508 & 5623/2019

¶18

A.Jamal Mohamed ...2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant in Crl.O.P.No.1508 of 2019

¶19

A.Nainar Kani ...2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant in Crl.O.P.No.5623 of 2019

¶20

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.1508 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the case against the Petitioners in C.C.No.2123 of 2018 in the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai -1, in Crime No.226 of 2018 on the file of the Respondent.

¶21

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.5623 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition

¶22

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

¶23

had been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the case against the Petitioners in C.C.No.2122 of 2018 in the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in Crime No.227 of 2018 on the file of the Respondent.

¶24

For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.1508/2019: Mr.H.Navas Basha

¶25

For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.5623/2019: Mr.N.Elayaraja

¶26

For Respondent in both Crl.O.P.Nos. : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶27

For Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.1508/2019: Mr.N.Elayaraja for R2

¶28

For Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.5623/2019: Mr.H.Navas Basha for R2

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

When the cases came up for hearing on the previous occasion, they were referred to Mediation. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that he is appearing for the Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1508 of 2019 and for the Defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.5623 of 2019. In Crl.O.P.No.5623 of 2019 he had not been furnished with the typed set of papers. Further, he submitted that the Mediation failed.

¶31

On perusal of the records, it is seen that it is a case and counter. Both the parties had approached this Court to quash each others case. Therefore, this Court had referred the matter to Mediation. In the Mediation, no amicable settlement was arrived and hence, no purpose will be served in keeping these petitions pending.

¶32

3.The Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1508 of 2019 and the Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.5623 of 2019 are brothers. The Court had granted an opportunity to settle the matter amicably but, they had not settled. In the light of the Mediation report, it is seen that it is not a fit case to quash the charge sheet.

¶33

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that both the cases had been stayed. Therefore, the Trial Court could not proceed with the case.

¶34

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

¶35

5.In view of the above submissions, it is seen that the Petitioners in both the cases have succeeded in delaying the trial for more than three years and they had an opportunity to settle it amicably before the Mediation, but it failed. Hence, no purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, which will protract the proceedings before the Trial Court. Therefore, both the petitions are dismissed and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial.

¶36

6.The exercising of discretionary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is only to prevent the abuse of process of law. In the case on hand, both the brothers utilized this Court to abuse each other and delayed the trial before the Trial Court. This act of abuse of Court has been objected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and advised the High Court to use the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparely, which squarely apply to the facts of the case.

¶37

7.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶42

dna

¶43

¶44

The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶45

The Inspector of Police

¶46

B-2, Esplanade Police Station Chennai 600 001.

¶47

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶48

Crl.O.P.Nos.1508 & 5623 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.978, 979, 3191 & 3192 of 2019

¶49

AD(CO) RGA(25/05/2022)

¶50

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

A.Nainar Kani v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Nainar Kani 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

R.Muni Krishnaih Naidu Vs the Stater Rep by

Sujatha Vs the State Rep by

Sanjay Kaul Vs the Inspector of Police

Mathew Samuel Vs State Rep by

S.Venugopal Vs State Rep. by

A.Shylendar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu