Dismissed

M/S.Krish Homes v. Syed Mohammed Javeed

Madras HC11 Apr 2022CRL OP/355/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioners' application to quash complaints under Section 482 Cr.P.C., deeming it an abuse of process due to their non-appearance. Directions were issued to the Metropolitan Magistrate to expedite the trial and the Police Commissioner to form a unit for executing warrants against absconding accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with direction to trial court to proceed within three months and Police Commissioner to form a unit for warrant execution.

M/S.Krish Homes Vs Syed Mohammed Javeed — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.04.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

CRL.O.P.NOS.355 & 357 OF 2019 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.227, 228, 230 & 231 OF 2019

¶6

M/s.Krish Homes

¶7

Represented by its Managing Partner K.Venkatesh

¶8

... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.355 of 2019

¶9

K.Venkatesh

¶10

... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.357 of 2019

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Syed Mohammed Javeed Represented by his Power of Attorney Agent A.R.Mohammed Jaffer Sadique

¶13

... Respondent in both Petitions

¶14

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the complaint in C.C.Nos.7936 & 7937 of 2018 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Allikulam, Chennai.

¶15

For Petitioner in both Petitions : Mr.B.Manoharan

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

These Criminal Original Petitions had been filed to quash the complaint in C.C.Nos.7936 & 7937 of 2018 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Allikulam, Chennai.

¶18

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

¶19

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that notice was already ordered and notice had taken, but notice has not sent to the Respondent and the earlier adjudication of this Court shows that call for remarks from the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – II, Egmore at Allikulam.

¶20

On the basis of the Report sent by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 08.04.2022, the Petitioner herein who is the Accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had not appeared before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore, the Warrant was issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Till date, the Warrant was not executed by the Police concerned. From this conduct of the Petitioner, it is found that the Petitioner having filed this Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is duty bound either to appear before the trial Court or through Counsel and file appropriate Petition.

¶21

With the above observation, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed with a direction to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – II, Egmore to proceed with the trial within a reasonable period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which is a glaring example. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai is directed to form a separate unit to execute the Warrants issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrates and Sessions Judges in Chennai against absconding Accused to enable the Courts to dispose of the cases pending due to the absence of Accused before trial Courts. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate concerned is directed that if the absconding Accused is produced an execution of Warrant, such Accused shall be remanded and the trial conducted during such remand. The case had to be disposed within a reasonable time after detaining the Accused in Prison till the trial is concluded. Only by adopting this method the long pending trial due to absconding of Accused can be brought down. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

To
1.	The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Allikulam, Chennai.
2.	The Commissioner of Police, Chennai.
3.	The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 104.
Copy	To
1.	The Registrar (Judicial)
	High Court, Madras – 104.
2.	The Deputy Registrar, Criminal Section,
	High Court, Madras – 104.

¶28

CRL.O.P.Nos.355 & 357 of 2019

¶29

SSD(CO) RLP(11/05/2022)

¶30

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

M/S.Krish Homes v. Syed Mohammed Javeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Krish Homes v. Syed Mohammed Javeed

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

A.Nainar Kani Vs the Inspector of Police

Mathew Samuel Vs State Rep by

S.Venugopal Vs State Rep. by

Boopalan Vs the State Rep by Its

G.Jeyan Vs the State Rep by Its

T.L.Rajeswaran Vs C.Ramaiyan