1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13165 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.C.Palanisamy ... Petitioner/Respondent Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mayanur Police Station, Karur District. ... Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur not to entertain the Crl.R.C.No.26 of 2011 since the same is barred under Section 397(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. For Petitioner : Mr.Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ravi For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor for Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R This petition is filed seeking for a direction, directing the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur not to entertain the Crl.R.C.No.26 of 2011, since the same is barred under Section 397(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrested on 19.09.2011 and immediately, the respondent herein has filed an application for police custody on 22.09.2011, which was dismissed on 23.09.2011 against which, in stead of filing the criminal original petition, the respondent preferred a criminal revision. He would further submit that the maintainability of the revision has been questioned by the petitioner, but the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur has decided that the revision is maintainable and posted the matter today I.e., on 29.09.2011 for production of accused and arguments. 3. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that in paragraph No.8 of his order, he has stated that since the learned Judicial Magistrate has erroneously exercised his power, it has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 become necessary for this Court to exercise its power under Sections 397(1), 399 and 401 Cr.P.C. and hence, the petitioner has come forward with this application for staying the proceedings. Further more, he would submit that they filed another criminal original petition for quashing the F.I.R. in crime No.226 of 2011 registered by the respondent police on the basis of the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer, since he was not an authorised person to initiate the proceedings and hence, he prayed for the allowing of the application. 4. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that he wants to withdraw the criminal revision case in Crl.R.C.No.26 of 2011, which is pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, with liberty to file a criminal original petition before this Court. 5. Considering the rival submissions and also considering the fact that this Court has already held that, after following the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, the criminal original petition alone is maintainable, I am inclined to grant permission to the withdraw the criminal revision case in Crl.R.C.No.26 of 2011, which is pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, and file a fresh criminal original petition before this Court, challenging the dismissal of the Crl.M.P.No.2483 of 2011, dated 23.09.2011. 6. With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Karur. 2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur. 3. The Inspector of Police, Mayanur Police Station, Karur District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13165 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 29.09.2011 vsm NSV/19.10.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/