1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.1922 of 2011 S.Ramya ... Petitioner Vs. The Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.1117 of 1998) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for a direction to the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Dindigul to dispense with personal appearance of the petitioner's husband viz., N.Suresh, who is accused in S.C.No.41 of 2001 pending trial on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner :: M/s. Mr.V.Karuna For Respondent :: Mrs.S.Devasena, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Dindigul to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner's husband viz., N.Suresh, who is accused in S.C.No.41 of 2001 pending trial on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul. 2. Heard Mr.V.Karuna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner's husband viz., Mr.N.Suresh is an accused in Crime No.1117 of 1998 of the respondent police station and the charge framed against against him under Section 307 I.P.C. and after committal the case was taken on file in S.C.No.41 of 2001 and transferred to the learned Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul for disposal. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner's husband met with an accident on 13.04.2008 and thereafter, he was taking treatment for the grievous injuries sustained by him on his head and all over the body and therefore, he could not appear before the lower Court. Moreover, he was in coma stage for nearly six months and therefore, he could not appear before the lower Court also. He would also submit that after taking treatment only, the petitioner's husband can survive and now he has to move with the help of two persons only. Therefore, he would request the Court that the petitioner's husband may be permitted to be abstained from appearing before the Court in the case in S.C.No.41 of 2001. He would also submit that the petitioner's husband will appear before the said Court as and when required for the purpose of progress of the case as well as when his presence is imminently necessary. Therefore, he would request the Court that the petition may be ordered as prayed for. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in her argument the petitioner's husband was the sole accused in S.C.No.41 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul and he was absent and therefore, Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued by the said Court and Non-Bailable Warrnant is still pending. She would further submit that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner is said to have met with an accident and he cannot move for appearing before the Court for attending the case. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be verified and if for any reason, this Court finds that the petitioner's case is true, suitable condition may be imposed for the progress of the case and for early disposal. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The case is now pending before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul in S.C.No.41 of 2001 for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner would show that the petitioner's husband met with an accident and he was admitted in the hospital and was taking treatment. According to the submission of the leaned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's husband was in a coma stage for nearly six months and thereafter only he has become a conscious and slowly recovered from the said grievous injuries sustained in the accident. He has also produced a discharge summary in the typed set at Page No.1 to show that the petitioner's husband skull was cemented after undergoing left parieto temporal cranioplasty with bone cement and he was also given anti edema drugs, antibiotics and other supportive medications. Therefore, it can be understood that such condition of the petitioner's husband would not permit him to move, except with the help of other persons. However, Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued by the lower Court. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to direct the lower Court to cancel the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against the petitioner's husband, after production of the necessary documentary evidence for the absence of the petitioner's husband before the lower Court on 30.06.2008. The lower Court may not insist for the appearance or surrender of the petitioner's husband on that day of cancellation of Non-Bailable Warrant. Thereafter, the appearance of the petitioner's husband shall not be insisted by the trial Court on appearance of his counsel on his behalf, except for the hearing dates where his appearance is necessitated in law. Accordingly, the directions are issued to the lower Court, the petition seeking for dispensation of the appearance of the petitioner's husband is ordered. 7. It is clearly pointed out that this dispensation of the personal appearance of the petitioner's husband will come into effect only after the cancellation of Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the said Court. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is ordered. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ akv SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. 2. The Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO MR. V.KARUNA, ADVOCATE, SR: 10294: DM:2011::MARCH:24::: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1922 of 2011 2P:5C:: 25.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/