Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Petitioner vesus Respondents:------

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Mar 28, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191830

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.M.P.(MD) SR No. 4784 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 611 of 2011
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Excerpt

1. it is seen that mr.s.j.sundar singh is an accused in crime no.201 of 2006 on the file of the inspector of police, navalpattu police station, tiruchirappalli, challenging which, he has filed crl.o.p.(md) no.611 of 2011 for quashing the same. during the pendency of crl.o.p.(md) no.611 of 2011, mr.s.j.sundar singh has filed the present miscellaneous petition, which is in sr stage, for the following prayer: ...hon'ble court may be graciously pleased to direct the r-2 to explain the circumstances and furnish the copies of the documents collected by him from the factory on 25/1/2016.... 2. office entertained doubts about the maintainability of this petition and hence, the matter was posted for deciding the issue of maintainability before this court on 22.03.2016. 3. heard mr.s.j.sundar singh, party-in-person, who reiterated the stand taken by him in the petition. it is mr.sundar singh's contention that mr.c.s.sivakumar, joint general manager, ordnance factory, trichy (r2) had collected some records from the office of the general manager and had manipulated the same. therefore, mr.sundar singh has made the aforesaid prayer. 4. in the considered opinion of this court, section 482 cr.p.c. cannot be invoked for such a direction as prayed for by mr.sundar singh. the scope of section 482 cr.p.c. has been succinctly laid down by a division bench of this court in the case of k.rajamanickam and others vs. state, reported in 2015 (3) mwn (cr.) 379 (db). 5. in the result, the objection raised by the registry is upheld and the miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Full Judgment

1. It is seen that Mr.S.J.Sundar Singh is an accused in Crime No.201 of 2006 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Navalpattu Police Station, Tiruchirappalli, challenging which, he has filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.611 of 2011 for quashing the same. During the pendency of Crl.O.P.(MD) No.611 of 2011, Mr.S.J.Sundar Singh has filed the present miscellaneous petition, which is in SR stage, for the following prayer:

...Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to direct the R-2 to explain the circumstances and furnish the copies of the documents collected by him from the Factory on 25/1/2016....

2. Office entertained doubts about the maintainability of this petition and hence, the matter was posted for deciding the issue of maintainability before this Court on 22.03.2016.

3. Heard Mr.S.J.Sundar Singh, Party-in-Person, who reiterated the stand taken by him in the petition. It is Mr.Sundar Singh's contention that Mr.C.S.Sivakumar, Joint General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Trichy (R2) had collected some records from the office of the General Manager and had manipulated the same. Therefore, Mr.Sundar Singh has made the aforesaid prayer.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for such a direction as prayed for by Mr.Sundar Singh. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been succinctly laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Rajamanickam and others vs. State, reported in 2015 (3) MWN (Cr.) 379 (DB).

5. In the result, the objection raised by the Registry is upheld and the miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial