Christopher and Others Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari District and Another

Christopher and Others vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari District and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Apr 11, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191563

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1191563
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: P.N. Prakash
Decided On: Apr 11, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 6137 of 2016
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Christopher and Others

Respondent

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari District and Another

Excerpt

.....of the inspector of police, nesamani nagar police station, nagercoil, kanyakumari district and quash the same. 2. when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned government advocate (crl.side) submitted that trial in the case has commenced and about three witnesses have been examined. 3. under such circumstances, this court will not at this stage interfere under section 482 cr.p.c. hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 4. at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the presence of the petitioners before the trial court may be dispensed with. 5. however, considering the fact that the 1st petitioner is 77 years old, this court directs the 1st petitioner alone to appear before the trial court for collecting the final report and other papers under section 207 cr.p.c., at the time of framing charges, for questioning under section 313 cr.p.c. and on the day of judgment. on all other dates, if the 1st petitioner files an application under section 317 cr.p.c., undertaking that he will not dispute his identity and that his counsel will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the same day they are examined in chief in his absence without adopting dilatory tactics, the trial court may liberally consider and entertain the same in respect of the 1st petitioner alone. if the 1st petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial court to for remanding him to custody under section 309 cr.p.c., as held by the supreme court in the case of state of u.p. vs. shambhu nath singh, reported in 2001 (4) scc 667. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records as made in C.C.No. 164 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District by the 1^st Respondent in connection with Crime No.166 of 2003 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Nesamani Nagar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and quash the same.)

1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records as made in C.C.No. 164 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District by the 1^st Respondent in connection with Crime No.166 of 2003 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Nesamani Nagar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and quash the same.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that trial in the case has commenced and about three witnesses have been examined.

3. Under such circumstances, this Court will not at this stage interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.

5. However, considering the fact that the 1^st petitioner is 77 years old, this Court directs the 1^st petitioner alone to appear before the Trial Court for collecting the final report and other papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C., at the time of framing charges, for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day of judgment. On all other dates, if the 1^st petitioner files an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., undertaking that he will not dispute his identity and that his counsel will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the same day they are examined in chief in his absence without adopting dilatory tactics, the Trial Court may liberally consider and entertain the same in respect of the 1^st petitioner alone. If the 1^st petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to for remanding him to custody under Section 309 Cr.P.C., as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Christopher and Others vs State represented by The Inspector ... Same Subject MRTP Same Judge P.N. Prakash