Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vijayalakshmi Vs. State rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to execute the non bailable warrant pending as against the accused Nos.6, 9 to 11 in connection with C.C.No.110 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to execute the non bailable warrant pending as against the accused Nos.6, 9 to 11 in connection with C.C.No.110 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions from Mrs.Ambika, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Melur, Madurai District, who is also present in this Court, submitted that the Inspector of Police went to Andaman and arrested Muthaiah/A9 and his wife Sivakami/A10 and they have been remanded to judicial custody. As regards A6 and A11, they are in Kuwait and Singapore respectively and therefore, Police are ...
Mohamed Saleem Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register an FIR against the proposed accused persons based on the complaint dated 06.02.2016 given by the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register an FIR against the proposed accused persons based on the complaint dated 06.02.2016 given by the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.4 of 2016. 3. In view of the above submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police shall take action ...
Rajalakshmi Vs. M/s. B.S. Sundaravadivel Mudalier and Sons and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2006 passed in A.S.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in O.S.No.1588 of 1993, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy.) 1. This Second Appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2006 passed in A.S.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in O.S.No.1588 of 1993, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, is as follows: 3.1. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm doing Beedi Manufacturing business under the name and style of M/s.B.S.Sundaravadivel Mudaliar and Sons...
V. Venkataraman Vs. Irudhayaraj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's minor daughter, namely, Jasintha, aged about 4 years, who is now in the illegal custody of the respondents 1 to 3 before this Court, and to handover her custody to the petitioner.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed before this Court, by the father of the detenue, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents to produce the minor daughter of the petitioner, namely, Jasintha, aged about 4 years, before this Court, and to hand her over to the custody of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has alleged that the detenue, namely, Jasintha, who is the minor daughter of the petitioner, aged about 4 years, is in the illegal custody of the respondents 1 to 3. 3. At the time of the hearing of the Habeas Corpus Petition, on 01.03.20...
Gopal @ Gopalakrishnan and Another Vs. The State represented by its Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants in S.C.No.107 of 2012 dated 16.11.2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. ) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are A.1 and A.2 in S.C.No.107 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. There were two other accused by name Mr.Senthil @ Gopalakrishnan and Mr.Bharani and they were arrayed as A.3 and A.4 respectively. The trial Court framed as many as five charges against the accused as detailed below:- ad>AccusedChargesSection of LawA.1 and A.2MurderU/s302 I.P.C.,A.3 and A.4Murder in furtherance of common intentionU/s 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.,A.1Attempt to MurderU/s 307 I.P.C.,A.2 to A.4Attempt to commit murder in furtherance of common intentionU/s 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.,A.1 and A.2Criminal intimidationU/s 506(ii) I.P.C.,By judgment dated 16.11.2012, the trial Court acquitted A.3 and A.4, but, conv...
Sri Krishnan and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to register a case based upon the petitioner's complaint dated 27.9.2015 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to register a case based upon the petitioner's complaint dated 27.9.2015 and investigate the matter in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 27.09.2015 has been sent by post to the 4th respondent. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the 4th respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 27.09.2015. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in accordance with law, if it discloses the commission of...
Selva Vinayagam Vs. State rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirunelv ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi to conduct speedy trial of the case in C.C.No.417 of 2011.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi to conduct speedy trial of the case in C.C.No.417 of 2011. 2. It is seen that only 10 witnesses are cited in the memo of evidence in C.C.No.417 of 2011, despite which, the prosecution has not been completed. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the whereabouts of L.Ws.1 and 2 are not known. That cannot be a good reason for the prosecution to keep the trial pending. It is open to the prosecution to give up the examination of L.Ws.1 and 2, if they are not able to trace them and proceed with the trial by examining other witnesses. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has got employment abroad and because of the pendency of this case, the petitioner is not able to go abroad...
S. Rajendran Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's wife, namely, P.Bharathi, aged about 23 years, before this Court, and to set her at liberty.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the husband of the detenue, viz., P.Bharathi, aged about 23 years. On the allegation that the detenue has been now in the company of her parents, the petitioner has come up with this petition, seeking to direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court, and to set her at liberty. 2. We have heard, Mr.G.M.Ananthakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State; and we have also perused the records carefully. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the detenue was celebrated on 15.02.2016...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. Leave has been sought for under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C to appeal as against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur in S.C.No.46 of 2014. 3. A1 to A3 were prosecuted before the said Court on the allegation that A2 and A3 have given in marriage PW2 a minor girl, who has not attained the marriageable age, viz., 18 to A1, who is double her age. The trial court having found nil incriminating evidence, acquitted the accused. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned judgment suffer from legal perversity when especially PW2 has proved that she is far below 18 years. 5. On the other hand, Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the respondents/accused would submit that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal perversity or any infirmity. As there is no incriminating evidence to sustain the charge, rightly the trial court has acquitted the respondents. 6. I have anxiously considered ...
T. Chelladurai and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent police to register a case against in pursuant to the complaint dated 19.2.2016 given by the petitioner and investigate the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent police to register a case against in pursuant to the complaint dated 19.2.2016 given by the petitioner and investigate the same. 2. On reading of the complaint dated 20.02.2016, there appears to be a civil dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party in O.S.No.123 of 2012. Under such circumstances, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR on the complaint dated 20.02.2016. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »