Ravichandran vs The Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 17577 Mad

                                                            1

                                   BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 26.08.2021


                                                        CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                              Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12314 of 2021
                                                          and
                                         Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.6310 and 6311 of 2020

                     1. Ravichandran
                     2. Dhanapal
                     3. Vasanthi                                                 : Petitioners
                                                           Vs.

                     1.The Inspector of Police
                       Devipattinam Police Station
                       Ramanathapuram District

                     2. Chandran                                                 : Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
                     call for the records and quash the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.388
                     of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
                     Ramanathapuram


                                      For Petitioners     : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
                                      For R1              : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
                                                           Government Advocate(crl.Side)




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                           2

                                                        ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.388 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that due to previous enmity a false case has been foisted against the

petitioners and the ingredients of the offence is not made out against

the petitioners, hence, sought for quashment of the proceedings.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that

there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the

petitioners herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot

be quashed and the charges framed against the petitioners have to be

gone into a full-fledged trial. Further, he would submit that the trial has

also been commenced and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

4.This Court is of the view that all the grounds can be raised

before the trial Court and there is no merit in the quash petition.

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

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners prayed that the personal appearance of the petitioners

before the trial Court, may be dispensed with.

6.Accepting the said submission, the presence of the petitioners

before the trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that they

shall be present on the first day of appearance, on the date fixed for

receiving the copies, initial questioning, reply to charges and

questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing

judgment and whenever insisted upon by the trial court.

7.The petitioners are further directed to give an undertaking in

the form of affidavit that they shall be duly represented by a counsel

on all hearing dates and that the Counsel representing them will cross

examine the prosecution witnesses on the same day they are examined

in chief. The petitioners shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses.

The petitioners shall appear before the Court in the event their presence

is insisted by the trial judge for the purpose of identification. If the

petitioners adopts any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to

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

insist for their appearance and deal with the petitioners in accordance

with the judgment of Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar

Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition dismissed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition in Crl. M.P(MD) No.6310

of 2021 stands closed and Crl.M.P(MD) No.6311 of 2021 is ordered.

Further the trial Court is directed to complete the trial proceedings

within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

26.08.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram

2.The Inspector of Police Devipattinam Police Station Ramanathapuram District

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

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

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.,

aav

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12314 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.6310 and 6311 of 2020

26.08.2021

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