Skip to content


K. Thangavel Vs. The Inspector of Police, K. Pudur Crime Police Station, Madurai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCrl.RC(MD)No. 785 of 2016
Judge
AppellantK. Thangavel
RespondentThe Inspector of Police, K. Pudur Crime Police Station, Madurai
Excerpt:
.....call for the records in cr.m.p.nos.1711 and 2836 of 2016 in c.c.no.436 of 2016 on the file of the learned judicial magistrate no.vi, madurai and set aside the order dated 19.09.2016 and allow the criminal revision.) this criminal revision case has been filed praying to set aside the order passed in cr.m.p.nos.1711 and 2836 of 2016 in c.c.no.436 of 2016, dated 19.09.2016, by the learned judicial magistrate no.vi, madurai. 2. the court heard the submissions of mr.k.chandramohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and mr.p.kandasamy, the learned government advocate (crl.side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a sum of rs.19,94,650/- was recovered in this case and the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.Nos.1711 and 2836 of 2016 in C.C.No.436 of 2016 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and set aside the order dated 19.09.2016 and allow the Criminal Revision.)

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed praying to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.Nos.1711 and 2836 of 2016 in C.C.No.436 of 2016, dated 19.09.2016, by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.

2. The Court heard the submissions of Mr.K.Chandramohan, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.P.Kandasamy, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a sum of Rs.19,94,650/- was recovered in this case and the same is kept in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. The learned counsel would further submit that he is not pressing the Revision for the relief sought for against the dismissal of the return of the amount, since the learned Magistrate is not able to come to the conclusion as to who is entitled for the cash and he restricts his prayer only to dispose of the case in C.C.No.436 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, within the stipulated time to be fixed by this Court, since the case is pending for trial stage.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) has no objection in respect of early disposal of the case.

5. Considering the nature of the disputes and also the stage of the case, pending as trial against the seven accused, this Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.436 of 2016, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //