K.R.Venkatesh v. Salem Shevapet Sourashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.1374 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.12145 & 12146 of 2016

1. K.R.Venkatesh President, Sri Rukmani Sametha Sri Panduranganatha Swami Devasthanam, 113, Manickam Street, Sevapet, Salem - 2.

2. T.K.Madhavan Vice President Sri Rukmani Sametha Sri Panduranganatha Swami Devasthanam, 113, Manickam Street, Sevapet, Salem - 2.

3. E.S.Kanna Secretary, Sri Rukmani Sametha Sri Panduranganatha Swami Devasthanam, 113, Manickam Street, Sevapet, Salem - 2.

4. A.H.Sounder Assistant Secretary, Sri Rukmani Sametha Sri Panduranganatha Swami Devasthanam, 113, Manickam Street, Sevapet, Salem - 2.

5. P.V.Chandrapal Treasurer, Sri Rukmani Sametha Sri Panduranganatha Swami Devasthanam, 113, Manickam Street, Sevapet, Salem - 2.

6. V.H.Jagadeesh

7. T.S.Krishnamoorthi

8. K.T.Srinivasan

9. M.R.Nagarajan

10. N.Rangachari Petitioners 6 to 10 are the Board of Trustees of the Sri Rukmani Sametha Sri Panduranganatha Swami Devasthanam, 113, Manickam Street, Sevapet, Salem - 2.

.. Petitioners vs.

Salem Shevapet Sourashtra Maruthi Association, Represented by its Secretary, Achu Raman Street, Shevapet, Salem - 2.

.. Respondent Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem dated 26.08.2010 in C.M.P.No.3901 of 1015 in C.C.No.6 of 2015 and to set aside the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.V.Jayganesan for Mr.V.Raghavachari ****

O R D E R

This revision challenges the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem passed in C.M.P.No.3901 of 2015 in C.C.No.6 of 2015 on 26.08.2010.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in dismissing C.M.P.No.3901 of 2015, petition seeking discharge, the court below observed that there is no provision for discharge in respect of summary proceedings and has also discussed merits of the case and informed that it would be necessary for petitioners to face the trial.

3. On a reading of order under challenge, we find that such order can only be understood as informing that the petitioner would have to raise defences informed by him at the trial. The order under challenge cannot and will not stand in the way of petitioner taking recourse to such avenues as available to him in law.

4. With the above observation, this Criminal Revision Petition shall stand dismissed.

Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- ASST. REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST. REGISTRAR To The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.

Crl.R.C.No.1374 of 2016 MMP 28.12.2016