Disposed

G.Sudeesh v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Madras HC26 Jun 2024CRL OP/14882/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the petition to quash CC No. 51 of 2024, noting the matter involves a case and counter. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within two months, after considering a joint or simultaneous trial for the petitioner's complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to trial court to decide on joint/simultaneous trial and expedite disposal.

G.Sudeesh Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.06.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

CRL.OP.No.14882 of 2024 and

¶6

CRL.MP.Nos.9112 & 9113 of 2024

¶7

1.G. Sudeesh 2. Bhuvaneshwari ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. The Inspector of Police, H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019.

¶10

2. B. Ramanujam ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.51 of 2024 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvottiyur and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Raj Prince For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Petition is filed to quash the C.C.No.51 of 2024 on the ground that

¶15

the complainant team is aggressive, whereas the police had not properly

¶16

investigated the case and closed the complaint given by the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

1/4

¶19

Whereas the complaint given by the respondent against these petitioners was taken up for investigation and filed final report and taken cognizance by this court in C.C.No.51 of 2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case and counter not properly investigated and therefore, the benefit extended to the defacto complainant in CC.No.51 of 2024 ought to have been extended to the petitioner also.

¶21

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the complaint given by the petitioner to the police, which was earlier closed as mistake of fact, has been registered in view of protest petition filed by the petitioner herein and allowed by the Judicial Magistrate. The said complaint of the petitioner herein is under investigation and appropriate action will be taken on the complaint after investigation. It appears to be a case and counter in connection with the same occurrence. The Investigating Officer, who presently investigated the complaint of the petitioner shall, on completion of the investigation, take decision in accordance with law, for joint trial or simultaneous trial, if necessary, in these two cases.

¶22

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

¶23

2/4

¶24

The trial Court, shall dispose of the case, as expeditiously as

¶25

possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of

¶26

receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶28

disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

26.06.2024

¶30

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶31

¶32

¶33

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvottiyur

¶34

2. The Inspector of Police, H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019.

¶35

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

¶36

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶37

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

¶38

3/4

¶39

¶40

CRL.OP.No.14882 of 2024 and CRL.MP.Nos.9112 & 9113 of 2024

¶41

26.06.2024

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

G.Sudeesh v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sudeesh v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

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

V.Mani Vs the State Represented by

M.Ravi Vs Inspector of Police

S.Sekaran Vs the State Rep. by

Naveen Jain Vs the Asst Commissioenr of Police

S.Balasubramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police

Gopalappa Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department