Dismissed

M.Murugesan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Apr 2026CRL RC/579/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against conviction pending since 2013; no representation for the petitioner on two listings including one captioned 'for dismissal'. The revision was dismissed for non-prosecution and the trial court directed to secure the accused to serve any remaining imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed for non-prosecution; trial court directed to secure the accused to undergo remaining period of imprisonment, if any.

M.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Bail Slip:

¶2

The Petitioner/Accused namely M.Murugesan S/o.Munusamy was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 25.04.2013 made in MP.1/13 in Crl.Rc.No.579/2013.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

Dated : 19.09.2018

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.579 of 2013

¶8

M.Murugesan ...Petitioner/Accused

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State of Tamil Nadu

¶11

Rep. by the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Dharmapuri Unit. ...Respondent

¶12

This Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 13.03.2013 made in C.A.No.34 of 2008 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the order dated 01.04.2008 passed in C.C.No.63 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhikumar – No Appearance For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran

¶14

Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

When the criminal revision was taken up for hearing on 11.09.2018, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and hence the matter was directed to be listed on 19.09.2018 under the caption “for dismissal”. Accordingly, today, the matter was listed “for dismissal”.

¶17

2 Today, when the matter is taken called, there is no representation for the petitioner. Even though the revision is pending from the year 2013 and the matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner and hence this Court has no other option, except to dismiss the same for non prosecution.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

3 Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed for non prosecution. The trial Court is directed to secure the accused to undergo remaining period of imprisonment, if any.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶21

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cgi
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.
3. do Thro Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.
4.The Inspector of Police
CBCID,
Dharmapuri.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.579 of 2013
gjii(co)
nr 15/10/2018

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Murugesan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murugesan v. the Inspector of Police

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

Naresh Rathod Vs Tarun Rathod

Umesh Vs Inspector of Police

N.Duraisamy Vs State Rep by

Sankar Vs C.Muthukumar

K.G.Seshadri Vs G.Hari

Venkatesan Vs Inspector of Police