Allowed

P.L.Padikasu, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC26 Apr 2023CRL OP(MD)/9412/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a mining case. The court found no evidence placing the petitioner at the alleged quary site, noted he was a witness in the initial investigation, and held that continuing proceedings amounted to an abuse of process owing to lack of material linking him to the offence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Special S.C.No.4 of 2021 are quashed insofar as the petitioner/A1 is concerned.

P.L.Padikasu, Vs the Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on Delivered on 21.04.2023 26.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

CRL.OP (MD).No.9412 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.5985 of 2019

¶7

P.L.Padikasu .. Petitioner/1^st Accused

¶8

.Vs.

¶9

The State rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police District Crime Branch Madurai District. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to proceedings in PRC No.22 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same as against this petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam Senior Counsel for Mr.K.K.Samy

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This quash petition has been filed by the petitioner/A1 questioning the

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis final report filed by the respondent Police and which has now been taken

¶16

¶17

cognizance and pending in Special S.C.No.4 of 2021, before the Special Court.

¶18

2.The case of the prosecution is that a lease was granted to the petitioner in G.O.(3D) No.44 dated 06.03.1995 in Patta Survey No.133/2 (part) of Eravarpatti Village to an extent of 0.37.5 hectares for quarrying granites. The licence was not renewed after 2005. The petitioner sold the land to A8 - Deivendran on 24.04.2004.

¶19

3.The further allegation that has been made against the petitioner/A1 is that he along with A8 and other accused persons trespassed into the adjacent Government 'Malai Poramboke' land in SF.No.132/1 and removed the boundary stones with machineries and excavated granite stones by using explosive substances and committed theft of granite stones from the Government land and the leasehold area of M/s.K.S.N and Company in SF.No. 132/1 in the eastern side. Thereby, the petitioner is said to have caused wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.4.38 crores and he wrongfully gained by damaging the Government land beyond the leasehold area for which he was given earlier licence.

¶20

4.When the matter came up for hearing on 11.11.2022, this Court passed the following order:

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Therasy Vinod Kumar @ Vincy Renuka Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Accord Advertising Agencies Vs The Executive Officer

M.Devendran Vs The District Collector

V.Visweswaran Vs The commissioner

C.Govinthasami Vs The Commissioner

M.Green Rose Vs Regional Transport officer