N.Moorthy, Aged 65 Years v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.07.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.15718 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.7713 and 7714 of 2016 1.N.Moorthy

...Petitioner/Accused 2

2.M.Sundari

...Petitioner/Accused 3

3.M.Charumathi

...Petitioner/Accused 4

Petitioners Vs 1.The State rep by the Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District...Respondent/Complainant 2.A.Mangaiyarkarasi

...Respondent/Defacto Complainant

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the Final Report filed in C.C.No.17 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi and quash the same as illegal. For petitioners :

Mr.Padmanabhan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.B.Viswanathan For R1 :

Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

When this Court was about to dismiss the case on merits, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and the learned counsel on record has made an endorsement to that effect.

2. In view of the above endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

3. At that juncture, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court has not served summons on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mukesh Moorthy [A1] who is said to be in London and therefore, these petitioners are attending the Court every time and no effective progress has been made by the trial Court. Hence, their presence may be dispensed with. The petitioners are directed to be present for receiving the charge sheet, for answering the charge, at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The petitioners shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the trial Court that they will not dispute their identity and that their counsel will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined-in-chief and that they will not adopt dilatory tactics. On such undertaking, the trial Court shall dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners.

The trial Court shall ensure that the accused cross examines the witnesses on the day they are examined-in-chief as directed by the Supreme Court in Vinoth Kumar vs. State of Punjab [2015(1) MLJ (crl) 288]. If the accused adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial Court to remand them to custody in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shambunath Singh [JT 2001 (4) SC 319]. If the trial Court wants the presence of the accused for a hearing it need not send fresh summons and it will suffice if the counsel engaged by the accused is informed.

-s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar gms To

1. Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi.

2. Do Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate Tiruvarur

3. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

Crl.OP No.15718 of 2016 aa26/07/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/