Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 16991 Mad
Judgement Date : 28 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1027 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1027 of 2022
Mubarak .. Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Chandrasekar
2.R.Jeyakumar
3.R.Sugumar
4.S.Jeyanthi
5.K.Mageshwari
6.S.Krishnamoorthy .. Respondents/Proposed Accused
7.The Inspector of Police,
Ganthimarket Police Station,
Tiruchirappalli. .. 7th Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the
Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirappalli, in
Crl.M.P.No.22668/2022 by an order, dated 13.09.2022 and set aside the
same.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1027 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Subash Chandrabose for R1 to R6
Mr.S.S.Madhavan for R7
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the
Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirappalli, in
Crl.M.P.No.22668/2022, dated 13.09.2022.
2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government
Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that summon was issued to the petitioner on
the basis of the complaint given by him. But he was not available in the
house. So information was given to the wife of the petitioner and in turn
she asked to give it later. Again on 14.09.2022, summon was about to be
served on him. Again the same answer was given by the wife of the
petitioner. Later, he promised to appear before the Enquiry Officer. But in
spite of the telephone communication, he failed to appear before the
Enquiry Officer. So further action was not taken on the above said
complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1027 of 2022
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of the
pendency of the complaint before the concerned trial Court, the petitioner
did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Such sort of argument cannot be
accepted by this Court. When a complaint has been given by the petitioner
and summon was issued by the Enquiry Officer, it is the duty of the
petitioner to appear before the respondent police and co-operate with him to
complete the enquiry process.
4.Therefore, the petitioner shall appear before the Enquiry Officer and
co-operate with him to complete the enquiry process. Depending upon the
outcome of the enquiry, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can workout his
remedy in accordance with law.
5.With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case stands
disposed of.
28.10.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1027 of 2022
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Ganthimarket Police Station, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1027 of 2022
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1027 of 2022
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!