Dismissed

T.Velsankar v. T.S.Dhakshinamurthy

Madras HC3 Jul 2024CRL OP/9195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second quash petition under Section 482 CrPC against a pending complaint, filed while an earlier quash petition by the same accused was dismissed for default. Counsel sought withdrawal after a counter was filed. The court permitted withdrawal with a condition barring further quash petitions and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the petition granted, subject to condition of not filing any further quash petition.

T.Velsankar Vs T.S.Dhakshinamurthy — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.9195 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.OP.No.9195 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.MP.Nos.6456 and 6457 of 2024

¶9

T.Velsankar ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

T.S.Dhakshinamurthy ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in C.C.No.4388 of 2020 on the file of the FTC II Metropolitan Magistrate at Allikulam and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeya Sabare Eswaran

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.R.Narendran

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash C.C.No.4388 of

¶17

2020 sought to be withdrawn by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that

¶19

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

¶20

1/4

¶21

Crl.OP.No.9195 of 2024

¶22

after obtaining an interim order, the present petitioner who is the 3^rd accused, now prayed for withdrawal of the criminal original petition because the very same petitioner moved this Court for quash and the same was dismissed for default. Suppressing the said fact, he has filed the fresh petition for quash.

¶23

No interim order was granted in that petition. The second petition filed and ex-parte interim order was obtained. Now after filing the counter, to avoid action for suppression of fact, the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he was not aware of the earlier quash petition and it was wrongly filed by some other counsel. Now, having come to know that the petitioner has filed second quash petition when the earlier petition was pending, he instructed the party to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, he wants to withdraw criminal original petition. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition on condition that he shall not file any further quash petition.

¶25

In view of the above, this criminal original petition is dismissed

¶26

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

¶27

2/4

¶28

Crl.OP.No.9195 of 2024

¶29

as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

03.07.2024

1. The FTC II Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam

¶35

2. 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

Crl.OP.No.9195 of 2024

¶40

¶41

Crl.OP.No.9195 of 2024

¶42

03.07.2024

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

T.Velsankar v. T.S.Dhakshinamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Velsankar v. T.S.Dhakshinamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mani @ Nandhakumar Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

M/S.Kamalam Agro Products Vs M/S, Marico Ltd.

R.Sowmiyanarayanan Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Indira Vs State Rep.by

Ravikumar Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sheela Devi Vs Kumararaju