Madras High Court
Sheik Mohammed Sayed Saibu vs Vikash Anand on 25 January, 2017
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.01.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Crl.O.P.Nos.773 to 778 2017 Crl.O.P.No.773 of 2017: Sheik Mohammed Sayed Saibu ... Petitioner Vs 1.Vikash Anand 2.Charan Kumar 3.The Inspector of Police, J.2 Police Station (Traffic Investigation), Adyar, Chennai. ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition No.773 of 2017 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioner to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh rupees) deposited by A.1 in the credit of Crime No.610 of 2016 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, by complying the order dated 17.11.2016 and 25.10.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.22335 of 2016 on the file of this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Muthuselvam, in all the petitions. For Respondents : Mr.R.Sagadevan, for R1 and R2 Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for R3 COMMON ORDER
The present criminal original petitions have been filed to permit the petitioners to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in Crl.O.P.Nos.773, 774, 775, 776 and 778 of 2017 and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in Crl.O.P.No.777 of 2017 deposited by A.1 in the credit of Crime No.610 of 2016 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, by complying with the order of this Court dated 17.11.2016 and 25.10.2016 made in Crl.O.P.No.22335 of 2016.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 19.9.2016 at about 3.20 A.M., the respondents 1 and 2 / A.1 and A.2 were travelling in a Porsche Car at Cathedral Road. At that time, the first respondent drew the car in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the centre median and dashed 12 auto rickshaws, which were parked in the left side of the road. Due to the said accident, one person died and three persons sustained grievous injuries and five persons sustained simple injuries. Hence, a case was registered in Crime No.610 of 2016 against the respondents 1 and 2. Subsequently, the first respondent / A.1 moved this Court by filing a petition in Crl.O.P.No.22335 of 2016 seeking bail and this Court, by order dated 25.10.2016, granted bail imposing certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the first respondent / A.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each as compensation to the three persons who sustained grievous injuries and shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each as compensation to the five persons who sustained simple injuries, on or before 11.11.2016. As per the said direction of this Court, the first respondent / A.1 has deposited the above said amount to the credit of Crime No.610 of 2016 before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Thereafter, this Court, by order dated 17.11.2016, directed the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, to disburse the amount deposited by the first respondent / A.1 to the respective victims. However, when one of the victims viz., P.Singaravelu filed a petition on 28.12.2016 before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, to return the compensation amount, the same was returned by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition to permit them to withdraw their respective compensation amounts.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even though the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their respective compensation amount, the learned Magistrate returned the petition filed by them. Hence, the petitions.
4. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the entire materials available on record including the orders of this Court dated 25.10.2016 and 17.11.2016 made in Crl.O.P. No.22335 of 2016.
5. On verification of the records, it is clear that since the said P.Singaravelu did not present proper petition, the same was returned by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also not enclosed the said returned memo before this Court.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs and petitioners to file individual petitions along with necessary details as directed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on filing such petitions, the learned Magistrate is directed to permit the petitioners to withdraw their respective amounts as ordered by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.22335 of 2016 dated 17.11.2016, within a period of three weeks thereafter. All the criminal original petitions are ordered accordingly.
25.01.2017 Index:Yes/No sbi To
1.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, J.2 Police Station (Traffic Investigation), Adyar, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
R.MAHADEVAN, J sbi Crl.O.P.Nos.773 to 778 of 2017 DATED: 25.1.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in