Allowed

Wahith @ Abdul Wahith v. The Second Class Taluk Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Tahsildar

Madras HC2 Feb 2022CRL RC(MD)/81/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The Madurai Bench set aside an impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate, holding that principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or state their case before the order was passed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka. No.07/2021/A1 dated 18.11.2021; petitioner directed to be released forthwith unless presence is required in other cases.

Wahith @ Abdul Wahith Vs The Second Class… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.81 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 02.02.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

¶3

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.81 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1481 of 2022

¶4

Wahith @ Abdul Wahith .. Petitioner/Accused

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Second Class Taluk Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Tahsildar, Dindigul East, Dindigul. ... 1^st Respondent/Respondent 2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul District. ... 2^nd Respondents / complainant 3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Palani, Dindigul District. .. 3^rd Respondent/Respondent

¶7

Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order of the 1^st respondent by his proceedings in Na.ka.No.07/2021/A1, dt 18/11/2021 and set aside the same as illegal and allow the above Criminal Revision Petition.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arun For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed by the first respondent, in Na.ka.No.07/2021/A1, dated 18.11.2021.

¶11

2.The second respondent referred a case in L.I.R.No.200/2021, under Section 110 (e) Cr.P.C to the first respondent. The first respondent took up the case on file as M.C.No.214 / 2021. Before the first respondent, the petitioner has executed a bond on 21.10.2021, to maintain good behavior for a period of six months. Subsequently, on 16.11.2021, the petitioner involved in an offence in Crime No.1209 of 2021, under Sections 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. On the information given by the second respondent, the first respondent initiated proceedings under Section 122 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. and passed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

1/3

¶13

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.81 of 2022

¶14

the impugned order. Against the impugned order, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision.

¶15

On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that a false case was foisted against the petitioner by the Dindigul Town Police Station. The petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2021 and produced before the first respondent on 18.11.2021 and on the same day, the impugned order was passed. Copies of the documents were not furnished to the petitioner. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.

¶16

On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner has executed a bond to maintain good behavior for a period of six months, but, he involved in an offence in Crime No.1209 of 2021, under Sections 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C on the file of the Dindigul Town Police Station and the petitioner was arrested on the same date (ie.16.11.2021) and he is having a previous case in Crime No.1932 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 326, 449, 302, 506 (ii) I.P.C. r/w. Section 3(2)9v) of SC/ST Act. Only after examining the witnesses, the impugned order was passed by the first respondent and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

¶17

The impugned order is silent whether copies were furnished to the petitioner. It is seen that the order was passed on the same day of enquiry and the petitioner was given no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The case of the petitioner was not at all discussed by the first respondent. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶18

In the above circumstances, the impugned order in Na.Ka. No.07/2021/A1, dated 18.11.2021, passed by the first respondent is hereby set aside and this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in any other case.

¶19

Considering the previous antecedent of the petitioner, liberty is given to the first respondent to initiate proceedings, if there is any necessity. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

Assistant Registrar(Crl side)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

2/3

¶26

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.81 of 2022

¶27

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

¶29

The Second Class Taluk Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Tahsildar, Dindigul East, Dindigul.

¶30

The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶31

3.The Superintendent/ Officer incharge, Sub Jail, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶32

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.B.ARUN, Advocate ( SR-3800[F] dated 02/02/2022 )

¶34

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.81 of 2022 02.02.2022

¶35

ps(CO)

¶36

TR(04.02.2022) 3P 6C

¶37

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

¶38

3/3

Wahith @ Abdul Wahith v. The Second Class Taluk Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wahith @ Abdul Wahith v. The Second Class Taluk Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Tahsildar

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

Kumar Vs The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Elangovan Vs The Inspector of Police

Elangovan Vs The Inspector of Police

Baskaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Sahabdeen Vs Mohamed Meeran

Billclinton Vs The Inspector of police