Dismissed

Sindhuja v. State Rep. by

Madras HC28 Apr 2023CRL OP/11450/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition to quash a chargesheet was dismissed by a single-judge bench of the Madras High Court because the trial had reached an advanced stage with nine out of eleven witnesses examined. The court held it was not inclined to entertain the petition and left contentions for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the chargesheet dismissed; connected petitions closed.

Sindhuja Vs State Rep. by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.11450 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.11450 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.6654 & 6655 of 2021

¶6

1.Sindhuja 2.Vivin Prasanna

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶10

2.S.Ponnammal

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Charge Sheet filed in C.C.No.45 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam and quash the same

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

1/4

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.11450 of 2021

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the Charge Sheet filed in C.C.No.45 of 2017, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial

¶19

Magistrate, Mettupalayam.

¶20

2 . When the matter was taken up for hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that out of 11 witnesses cited in the final report 9 witnesses have already been examined. Since the case is in the advanced stage of trial, this Court is not inclined to entertain this quash petition. It is open to the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court.

¶21

3 . However, the presence of the petitioners are dispensed with unless the learned Magistrate deems their presence necessary for the progress of the trial.

¶22

4 .With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶23

28.04.2023

¶24

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No shr

¶25

2/4

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.11450 of 2021

¶28

¶29

The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.

¶30

3/4

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.11450 of 2021

¶33

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶34

shr

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.11450 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.6654 & 6655 of 2021

¶36

28.04.2023

¶37

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sindhuja v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhuja 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

E.N.Madeswaran Vs the State Rep.by

L.C.Thirumalai Vs State Rep. by

S.Ramesh Vs the State Rep.by Its

R.Suganya Vs the State Rep.by Its

Karunanidhi Vs the State Rep.by Its

Kuppu Mani Vs the Inspector of Police