IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.16950 of 2007 Kaliaperumal @ Perumal .. Petitioner. Versus 1. K. Ramesh 2. R. Kavitha 3. State represented by The Station House Officer, D" Nagar P.S. Pandicherry .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 15.03.2007 passed in Crl.R.P.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, confirming the order in S.T.R.NO.6363 of 2004 dated 22.05.2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry and allow the above Criminal Original Petition. For Petitioner : M/s. V. Sairam For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. M/s. V.Manohar For Respondent-3 : Mr. M.R.Thangavelu Public Prosecutor for Puducherry O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to set aside the order dated 15.03.2007 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.12 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, confirming the order in S.T.R.NO.6363 of 2004 dated 22.05.2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Puducherry and allow the Criminal Original Petition. 2. The Prosecution case is that the petitioner/Defacto complainant lodged a criminal case with the Respondent Police against the 1st and 2nd respondents herein who are the son and daughter-in-law of the defacto complainant. The said case was registered for an alleged offence under section 427 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code. The case came up for hearing on 22.05.2006 before the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Magistrate, when the accused A1 and A2 were present. The prosecution failed to produce eyewitnesses before the Court to examine, inspite of sufficient opportunities being given. Originally the case was registered on 29.08.2004. For about 2 years the prosecution case was pending. So the learned Magistrate could not find any progress in the case and stopped the proceeding under section258 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Defacto complainant/ petitioner had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.12 of 2006 to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge discussed details about the nature of the offence and learned Sessions Judge passed order on merits and confirmed the order of the Learned Magistrate, who passed the order under section 258 Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to set aside the order of the Learned Subordinate Court Judicial Officers. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the citation furnished by him in A.R.Antulay's Case (AIR 1992-SC-1701) and the learned counsels for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the State and perusal of the orders of the above mentioned Courts, this Court is of the view that the Learned Magistrate dismissed the case on 22.5.2006, but the case was registered in the year 2004. About 2 years have lapsed in this case, without any further progress. Hence the learned Magistrate invoked section 258 of Criminal Procedure Code, which duly permits him to stop the case proceedings. And therefore the Magistrate had passed an order under section 258 of Criminal Procedure Code, which is perfectly correct. Further no irregularities in the said orders of the Courts can be found. Under the circumstances, this Court dismisses the Criminal Original Petition No.16950 of 2007. I mra/skn Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry. 2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry. 3. The Station House Officer, D" Nagar P.S., Pondicherry. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras + 1 cc to Mr. V. Sairam SR.36032. + 1 cc to Mr. V. Manohar, ADvocate Sr.35535. Crl.O.P.No.16950 of 2007 MRA(CO) EU 24.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/