Disposed

Karthick @ Idumbavanam Karthik v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Aio

Madras HC2 Feb 2024CRL OP/2394/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash a Section 160 Cr.P.C. notice to appear before NIA. The respondent granted permission to appear on a later date. The Court held that quashing was not warranted as the petitioner's request for a changed date was acceded to, and directed him to appear on the new date. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner directed to appear on 05.02.2024.

Karthick @ Idumbavanam Karthik Vs the Deputy Superintendent… — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2394 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.2394 of 2024 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.1711 of 2024

¶8

Karthick @ Idumbavanam Karthik

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Deputy Superintendent of Police/AIO, National Investigation Agency, Branch Office, Chennai. RC.No.33/2022/NIA/DLI, dt. 25.07.2022

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the notice issued u/s. 160 of Cr.P.C. Dated 02.02.2024 by the respondent to the petitioner summoning him to appear before the respondent on 02.02.2024 at 09.30 a.m. before the respondent office at 09.30 a.m. at No.10, Millers Road, Pursawalkam, Chennai in RC.No. 33/2022/NIA/DLI, dated 25.07.2022 against the petitioner.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.2394 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Felix For Respondents : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Special Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶20

The impugned summon, issued under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code dated 02.02.2024, directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent on 02.02.2024 at 09.30 A.M. at Chennai, is under challenge in the present Criminal Original Petition.

¶21

The reason assigned in the present petition for the petitioner's inability to appear before the respondent is that he had already reached Tiruchirapalli to participate in a protest organised by Naam Tamilar Katchi on 03.02.2024.

¶22

Mr.T.Sreejith, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, National

¶23

Investigation Agency, Chennai, appeared before us through video

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.2394 of 2024

¶27

conferencing and stated that the petitioner had sent a request to their office expressing his inability to appear on 02.02.2024 and sought for permission to appear on 05.02.2024 before them. Acceding to his request, permission was granted to him to appear on 05.02.2024, instead of 02.02.2024.

¶28

In view of the request of the petitioner himself to appear on 05.02.2024 instead of 02.02.2024, which request has also been accepted by the respondent, this Court is of the view that quashing of the impugned summon dated 02.02.2024 is not warranted.

¶29

In the light of the above observations, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 05.02.2024 in connection with the impugned summon dated 02.02.2024. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

(M.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 02.02.2024

¶31

Index:Yes/No hvk Note: Issue order copy today

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.2394 of 2024

¶35

M.S.RAMESH,J. AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.

¶36

hvk

¶37

¶38

The Deputy Superintendent of Police/AIO, National Investigation Agency, Branch Office, Chennai.

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.2394 of 2024

¶40

02.02.2024

¶41

Page 4 of 4

¶42

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

Karthick @ Idumbavanam Karthik v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Aio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthick @ Idumbavanam Karthik v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Aio

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

Mathesh Vs the Secretary to the Government

Amaravati Vs Superintendent

S.Lalkhan Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police

Murugaiya Vs the Inspector of Police

Kanagapathmanathan Vs State Rep.by

Leraned Liberalls Vs the Home Secretary