Disposed

Michel Dominic Raja v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Jan 2024CRL OP(MD)/791/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition for quashing proceedings, declining to interfere with the charge sheet. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months and permitted the petitioners to be exempted from personal appearance except for key procedural stages.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude trial within 3 months; dispensing with petitioners' appearance except for receiving copy, framing charges, examination, and judgment.

Michel Dominic Raja Vs The Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.791 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.791 of 2022 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.571 and 572 of 2022

¶8

Michel Dominic Raja

¶9

Elizabeth Innasi Rani

¶10

Sakayaraj

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

State represented by the Inspector of Police, KV Nallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Now Tenkasi District), Crime No.250 of 2019.

¶14

Kavimani

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.617 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil and quash the charge sheet, the consequential further proceedings as against the petitioners.

¶17

For petitioners : Mr.C.Karthik For R-1 : Mr.SS.Madhavan, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R-2 : No Appearance

¶18

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

¶19

1/6

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.791 of 2022

¶21

O RDER

¶22

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.617 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that due to matrimonial

¶24

dispute, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant / wife of the first petitioner herein. Hence, the complaint.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the defacto complainant is the wife of the first petitioner herein. He would further submit that due to some dispute, the defacto complainant left the matrimonial home and thereafter, the first petitioner requested her to live with him. But the defacto complainant refused to live with him, due to which, a wordy quarrel arose between them and the defacto complainant made a complaint before the respondent Police, as if, the petitioners have attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to her. Thereafter, the respondent Police registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.250 of 2019 and the respondent Police

¶26

conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet and the same was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.791 of 2022

¶28

taken on file in C.C.No.617 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that during the pendency of this petition, the defacto complainant has filed a petition seeking for divorce and got exparte decree and subsequently, she performed another marriage. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that this Court may issue a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of three months.

¶29

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent Police.

¶30

5 . Since the case is pending from the year 2020, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial in C.C.No.617 of 2020 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the defacto complainant fails to appear before the trial Court within the above said period, the trial Court may pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 256 of Cr.P.C.

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.791 of 2022

¶34

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this Court may consider dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the court below. Taking into consideration the request as made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the appearance of the petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with except for their appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the presence of the petitioners is necessary, the trial court, at its wisdom, shall direct their appearance on those days.

¶35

With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

19.01.2024

¶37

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TSG

¶38

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

¶39

4/6

¶40

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.791 of 2022

¶41

¶42

The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

¶43

The Inspector of Police, KV Nallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Now Tenkasi District).

¶44

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶45

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

¶46

5/6

¶47

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.791 of 2022

¶48

M.DHANDAPANI. J.

¶49

TSG

¶50

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.791 of 2022

¶51

19.01.2024

¶52

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

¶53

6/6

Michel Dominic Raja v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Michel Dominic Raja v. The Inspector of Police

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

R.G Amutha Vs The Inspector of Police

Naina Mohamed @ Naina Moosa Vs The Forest Ranger

C.Kannan Vs The Inspector of Police

Moses Selvaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Messrs Velan Textiles Limited Vs Cotton Corporation of India

Jalari Ramana Vs The Inspector of Police