Remanded

K.Moorthy @ Jaya [email protected] Senje Raja v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Nov 2023CRL OP/3081/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court recalled a non-bailable warrant issued against petitioner appearing party-in-person. Court directed petitioner to engage counsel or file application before trial court, noting lack of legal awareness compromises his defense.

What did the court decide?

NBW recalled; directed to appear before trial court either by filing petition or engaging counsel.

K.Moorthy @ Jaya Moorthi@K.N.K Senje Raja Vs the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3081 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.3081 of 2023

¶7

K.Moorthy @ Jaya Moorthi @ K.N.K.Senje Raja ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee Sub Division, Gingee.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station, Gingee. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to direct the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases, Villupuram, to accept the petition filed under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., and consider the same on the filing of the day itself.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Moorthy @ Jaya Moorthi @ K.N.K.Senje Raja Party-in-person

¶13

For R1 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner herein appears as party in person seeks recall of warrant issued against him for non appearance before the trial Court on 21.12.2022.

¶18

2. The petitioner herein is facing the trial in S.C.No.1/2015 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases, Villupuram . As per his petition, on 21.12.2022, he had attended the Court of Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Sivagnanam as party in person in Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2022 and therefore, he was not able to present physically before the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases, Villupuram hearing in S.C.No.1 of 2015. Hence Non Bailable Warrant was issued against him. According to the petitioner, he has informed the Court through e-mail that his advocate to attend physically on the date of hearing.

¶19

3. In this petition he seeks for recall of warrant under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. When he being physically present before the Court for the said purpose, he has also enclosed two judgments of this Court which according to him allow an accused to recall the warrant issued for his non

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.3081 of 2023

¶23

appearance even without he been present.

¶24

4. When the matter came up for admission on 28.02.2023, this

¶25

Court called for the report from the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases, Villupuram t o ascertain whether the petitioner had filed any application to recall warrant under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., before the Court. The Presiding Officer has sent report wherein it is stated that there is a direction by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.O.P.No.20337 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 to complete the trial in S.C.No.01 of 2015 within a period of three months. The petitioner / accused appeared as party in person. He is not cooperating with the trial and he has refused to cross examine the witnesses on the day when the witnesses are present. Subsequently, he remained absent on the next hearing date. He has not cross examined PW.1 to PW.8 so far.

¶26

5. Though the matter is pending for trial since 2007, on 25.01.2023, a petition under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., was filed by an advocate on behalf of the petitioner without vakalat. After considering the representation made by the petitioner herein, the averment made in the

¶27

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

¶28

3/6

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.3081 of 2023

¶30

petition as well as the report of the Presiding Officer, it is suffice to say that the petitioner who was not present on the date of hearing now suffers NBW which has to be recalled in the manner known to law. Hence he is directed to appear before the Court which has issued warrant and seeks recall of warrant either filing a petition or engage a counsel or through advocate. If any such application is filed, the Court will take note of the fact that the petitioner who is the accused and contesting the case as a party-in-person so far may need a better consideration, since he is not conversant with the legal procedure and law.

¶31

6. With this observation, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶32

disposed of.

¶33

21.11.2023

¶34

Neutral Citation : Yes/No rpl

¶35

¶36

1.The Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases, Villupuram.

¶37

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee Sub Division, Gingee.

¶38

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

¶39

4/6

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.3081 of 2023

¶41

3.The Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station, Gingee.

¶42

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶43

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶44

rpl

¶45

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

¶46

5/6

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.3081 of 2023

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.3081 of 2023

¶49

21.11.2023

¶50

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

¶51

6/6

K.Moorthy @ Jaya [email protected] Senje Raja v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Moorthy @ Jaya [email protected] Senje Raja v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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.M.Paramasivan Vs State by Inspector of Police D.V.A.C. Dindigul

Uma Mandhagini Vs R.Kannan

Padmini Vs S.Santhakumar

P.Mylsamy Vs Gomathi

Manimegelai Vs the Superintendent of Police (Rural)

Karuna Vs Ramesh