Dismissed

Backiyalakshmi v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Dec 2024CRL OP(MD)/5839/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of trial proceedings. The court held factual grounds required evidence appreciation reserved for the trial court. It directed the lower court to complete connected proceedings within six months using day-to-day trial methodology.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction to complete connected trial proceedings within six months on day-to-day basis.

Backiyalakshmi Vs The Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5839 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5839 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.5089 of 2023

Backiyalakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Taluk Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.638/2019).

¶11

Ramakrishnan .... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in STC No.1288 of 2022, pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl Side) for R1 Mr.R.Manoharan for R2

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5839 of 2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶20

proceedings in S.T.C.No.1288 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur.

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

¶22

Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶23

3.The grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner are all factual in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Court below and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5839 of 2023

¶27

4.There is a case and counter-case involved in Crime Nos.

¶28

637 and 638 of 2019. Insofar as Crime No.637 of 2019, the same ended in C.C.No.359 of 2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur. Insofar as Crime No.638 of 2019 is concerned, the same ended in S.T.C.No.1288 of 2022. In view of the same, there is no question of quashing one of the case and both the cases will have to travel together in line with the judgment of the Full Bench in T.Balaji and another v. The State , reported in 2024-2-L.W.(Crl.)175 .

¶29

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed

¶30

with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in C.C.No.359 of 2022 and S.T.C.No.1288 of 2022 in line with the judgment of the Full Bench within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial shall be conducted on a day to day basis in accordance with the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 SC] . If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial Court to insist upon the presence of the petitioner and remand him to custody as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5839 of 2023

¶34

SC 3191)

¶35

OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH (JT 2001 (4)

¶36

SC 3191) . Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.