S.Ramalingam vs The State on 7 July, 2017

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Ramalingam vs The State on 7 July, 2017

Bench: V.Bharathidasan

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 07.07.2017  

CORAM   

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN          

Crl.R.C(MD).No.782 of 2013 
and 
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013  

1.S.Ramalingam  
2.S.Kumar @ Murugesan    
3.T.Kalai Selvan
4.D.Chellasamy                  ... Petitioners/Petitioners/     
                                    Accused No.1 to 4
 -Vs-

The State, represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Eathamozhi Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.           ....Respondent/Respondent/ 
                                     Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 and 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to  call for the  records
and to set aside the judgement passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.III, Nagercoil in Crl.M.P.No.4078 of 2013 in C.C.No.62 of 203, dated
30.10.2013.

For Petitioner  : M/s.C.T.Perumal 

For Respondent  : Mr.C.Mayil vahana Rajendran         
                          Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side)

:ORDER

The challenge in this revision is to an order dismissing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for discharging the Petitioner from the criminal cases.

2.The petitioner has been charged with offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii) and 379 IPC. After investigation, a final report has been filed and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil had taken cognizance of the offence and taken the matter on file. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the above discharge petition to discharge him from the criminal case. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after consideration materials available on record, dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the Petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the entire trial is over and only the Investigating officer remains to be examined by the prosecution.

4.Considering the fact that the trial has been commenced and the entire prosecution witness has been examined except the Investigating Officer, it is suffice to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial and dispose of the case within a reasonable time fixed by this Court.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil to conclude the trial in C.C.No.62 of 2013 on its file and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eathamozhi Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court