Dismissed

Jaishankar v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC30 Mar 2022CRL OP/6939/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a petition seeking quashing of SC/ST Act proceedings on factual grounds, ruling that such issues require trial. The court dispensed with personal appearance except for specific trial stages and mandated an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed. Personal appearance dispensed with subject to undertaking and conditional appearance for Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Jaishankar Vs State Rep by Its — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.03.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6939 of 2022 and

¶6

Crl.M.P.Nos.3953 & 3954 of 2022

¶7

1.Jaishankar

¶8

2.Selvakumar 3.Muthuram

¶9

4.Ajithkumar

¶10

... Petitioners / Accused 1 to 4

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Thittakudi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶13

Dhanasekar

¶14

... Respondents / Complainant

¶15

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings pending in S.C.No.13 of 2020 pending on the file of Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial Cases under SC & ST Act cases, Cuddalore District and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Dayalan

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings pending in S.C.No.13 of 2020 pending on the file of Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial Cases under SC & ST Act cases, Cuddalore District and quash the same.

¶20

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

¶21

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the provisions of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been misused by the de-facto complainant as against the petitioners to settle personal score. He further submitted that, as per the complaint, during the first incident, only A1 was said to have abused the de-facto complainant. However, strangely, the 2^nd statement has also been obtained from the other witnesses as if the petitioners have also abused the de-facto complainat. However, the final report has been filed only against the petitioners. He further submitted that entire complaint is foisted.

¶22

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the petitioners have abused the defacto complainant calling him by a caste name and also assaulted him with wooden-log, stone and machete. He further submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioners are factual in nature and they can be tested only during the course of trial and the proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶23

4.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court, may be dispensed with.

¶24

5.Accepting the said submission, the presence of the petitioners, before the trial Court is dispensed with on condition that the petitioners shall be present on the first day of appearance, on the date fixed for receiving the copies, initial questioning, reply to charges and questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing judgment and whenever insisted upon by the trial court.

¶25

The petitioners are further directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit that they will be duly represented by a counsel on all hearing dates and that the Counsel representing them will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the same day when they are examined in chief. The petitioners shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses. The petitioners shall appear before the Court in the event of their presence is insisted by the trial judge for the purpose of identification. If the petitioners adopt any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist for their appearance and deal with in accordance with the judgement of Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.

¶26

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

¶27

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.3953 of 2022 stands closed and Crl.M.P.No.3954 of 2022 is partly allowed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

vkr

¶33

¶34

The Sessions Judge,

¶35

Special Court for Exclusive Trial Cases under SC and ST Act Cases, Cuddalore District.

¶36

The Inspector of Police, Thittakudi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶37

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.D.Dayalan, Advocate, S.R.No.21510

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.6939 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3953 & 3954 of 2022

¶40

AJS[co] NSK 19/04/2022

¶41

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

Jaishankar v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaishankar v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Senthilkumar Vs State Represented by

Saravanan Vs State Rep by

Guna Vs the State Repby

[email protected] Vs Babu @ Punniyamurthy

Elanchezhiyan Vs The State rep. by

M.Bagyasri Vs State Rep by