Dismissed

Niharika Hospital v. State Rep. by

Madras HC25 Jul 2023CRL OP/3080/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, holding that factual disputes require evidence appreciation by the trial court. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months on a day-to-day basis and allowed representation for one petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; trial to be completed in six months; one petitioner permitted to be represented.

Niharika Hospital Vs State Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3080 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.3080 of 2022 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.1380 of 2022

¶8

1.M/s.Niharika Hospital, Registration No.PNA/2326/2003 Under PCFNDT Act, Registration No.324, Cuddalore Main Road, Vazhappady, Salem District.

2.M.Selvamba

...Petitioners

vs.

State rep by District Appropriate Authority of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Dr.Rathika, Senior Civil Surgeon and Medical Officer, Government Taluk Hospital, Sub District, Vazhappady. (C.C.No.88 of 2020)

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

Page No.1/5

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.3080 of 2022

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.88 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Munsif court, Vazhappady, Salem and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan, for Mr.S.Joel For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner in C.C.No.88 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Munsif court, Vazhappady, Salem.

¶22

The grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioners are all factual in

¶23

nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Court below and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below.

¶24

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

¶25

Page No.2/5

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.3080 of 2022

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the second petitioner. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the second petitioner is dispensed with and she shall appear before the Court below as and when required by the Court below and during all the other times, she shall be permitted to be represented by the counsel. The counsel, who represent the petitioners, shall cross-examine the witness on the same day, they are examined in Chief. The second petitioner shall be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at the time of final judgement.

¶28

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in CC No.88 of 2020 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial shall be conducted on a day to d ay basis in accordance with the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 SC] . If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial Court to insist upon the presence of the petitioner and remand him to custody as per the judgment of the Hon'ble https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/5

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.3080 of 2022

¶30

Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH (JT 2001 (4) SC 3191) . Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶31

25.07.2023

¶32

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order nsa

¶33

¶34

1.The Judicial Magistrate cum Munsif Court, Vazhappady, Salem

¶35

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104..

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/5

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.3080 of 2022

¶38

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. nsa

¶39

Crl.O.P No.3080 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1380 of 2022

¶40

25.07.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/5

Niharika Hospital v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niharika Hospital 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Magi Vs Director General of Police

Gandhi Vs State Rep.by

K.Chandran Vs State Rep by

G.Durairaj Vs B.Babu

Albert Rajkumar Vs the Commissioner of Police

K.E.Sekar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police