Madras High Court
R.Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar vs State Represented By The ... on 21 June, 2022
Crl.OP.No.14064 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P. No.14064 of 2022 & Crl.M.P.Nos.7663 & 7665 of 2022
R.Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State represented by The Inspector of Police,
Bhuvanagiri Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
[Crime No.386 of 2017]
2. Muthusamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertains to the C.C.No.47 of
2019 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Parangipettai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Padmanabhan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor – R1
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14064 of 2022
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the case in
C.C.No.47 of 2019 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Parangipettai for the offences under sections 294[b], 506[ii] and
352 of IPC as against the petitioner.
2. The allegations against the petitioner is that in a wordy quarrel the
petitioner is said to have abused the second respondent and assaulted her
and hence, the final report has been filed against the petitioner.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that first
respondent without conducting proper enquiry has filed the charge sheet as
against the petitioner and hence, seeks to quash the charges against the
petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that there are prima facie materials against the
petitioner and witnesses have clearly spoken about the role played by the
petitioner in the commission of the offence and hence, prayed to dismiss this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14064 of 2022
petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the fist respondent.
6. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
gone into at this stage by conducting roving enquiry while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is left open to the petitioner to
raise all his defence before the trial Court and the Court below shall consider
the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought
indulgence of the Court, to dispense with the personal appearance of the
petitioners.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a
direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings, 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 Vs State of Punjab [2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14064 of 2022
(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 OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH (JT
2001 (4) SC 3191). In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with
except for receiving copies, for answering the charges, for questioning under
section 313 Cr.P.C. and any other dates fixed by the trial Court.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
21.06.2022
vrc
To,
1. The Inspector of Police,
Bhuvanagiri Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14064 of 2022
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
Crl.O.P. No.14064 of 2022
21.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
