Madras High Court
Ilan Kumaran vs The State Rep.By on 26 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.4964 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.4964 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.2903 of 2019
1.Ilan Kumaran
2.Chandra @ Selvi
3.Nirmal Kumar
4.Shakul Ahameed @ Labbi Shakul Ahamed ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police
Protection of Civil Right Cell (PCR) Police Station
Puducherry
Crime No.1of 2015.
2.R.Radha Krishnan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.63 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Puducherry.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4964 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.Jagadesh Kumar
for Mr.S.Sugendran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Alexander for R1
Government Advocate(Puducherry)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2018 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Puducherry.
2. When the case came up for hearing on 01.04.2022, there was
no representation for the Petitioners. This Court raised queries with the
learned Junior Counsel attached to the Office of the learned Public
Prosecutor for Pondicherry. As per the submission of the learned Counsel,
on 01.04.2022 this Court had passed the order, and the relevant paragraph is
also follows:
“2. On enquiry with the learned Counsel attached to the
Office of the Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry, he submitted
that there had been financial transaction between the Accused
and the Defacto complainant. In the course of financial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4964 of 2019
transaction, there had been a wordy quarrel in which the
Accused/Petitioners herein are alleged to have abused the
Defacto complainant using his caste name. Therefore, the
Defacto complainant had preferred complaint with the
Inspector of Police, Protection of Civil Rights, Pondicherry
and based on which, the case has been registered and on
investigation, they had laid the final report before the Court of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry. Further,
the learned Counsel would submit that the Petitioner No.2
Chandra @ Selvi who is arrayed as A3 before the trial Court
had absconded and NBW was issued against her which is still
pending. A1, A2 and A4 who are the Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 had
filed petition to condone their absence and the case is posted
for further hearing on 19.04.2022.”
3. Subsequently, the case was adjourned to 08.04.2022 and
posted under the caption “for dismissal.” On 08.04.2022, the Counsel
representing the Counsel on record for the first Petitioner submitted that one
of the Counsel was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor, but he was
unable to state, who was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor. The
other three Counsels are also not present in the Court on 08.04.2022. The
Counsel representing the previous Counsel on record further submitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4964 of 2019
Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, will be filing vakalat/memo of appearance and
sought time to proceed with the arguments. Therefore, the case was
adjourned to 26.04.2022.
4. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the learned
Counsel submitted that their names had not been printed in the cause-list.
On query by this Court to the learned Counsel representing the Counsel on
record for Petitioners submitted that change of vakalat is yet to be filed.
5. From the records, it is seen that the Petitioners are Accused
Nos.1 to 4. As per the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor
(Puducherry), this case arises out of the offence under Section SC/ST
(Prevention and Atrocities) Act and this petition had been filed by the
Accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2018.
6. At the stage of admission, an order of interim stay was
granted, thereby preventing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Puducherry from proceeding with the trial of the case. As per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4964 of 2019
submission of the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry), second Petitioner
herein/third Accused is absconding and Non-Bailable Warrant had been
issued by the Trial Court against her. In the light of the same, this petition
lacks merit. Therefore, this Court directs the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Puducherry, to issue direction to the Deputy Superintendent of
Police under the SC/ST (Prevention and Atrocities) Act, concerned to
secure the second Petitioner/third Accused and produce her before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. When the second
Petitioner/third Accused is produced on execution of Non-Bailable Warrant,
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry is directed to commit her
to Prison till the trial is completed.
7. After obtaining order of interim stay, the Accused had wantonly
delayed the trial before the trial Court, which is found to be against the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in State
of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors, reported in 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. This is the glaring example, where the
Court should not exercise the extraordinary power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4964 of 2019
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
dna
8. Under those circumstances, this Court does not find any
merit in this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed with a direction to the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate,POndicherry to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
26.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dna
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police
Ukkadam Police Station
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.4964 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.2903 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4964 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
