1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:14.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16238 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 S.Ramesh :Petitioner -Vs- The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Pasuvanthanai Polcie Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.91 of 2009) :Respondent PRAYER:Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti dated 30.11.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.10785 of 2011 in C.C.No.282 of 2010 with regard to imposing of the condition and thereby directing the petitioner to sign before the respondent police daily at 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. for one month. For Petitioners: Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh For Respondents: Mr.P.Kannithevan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti dated 30.11.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.10785 of 2011 in C.C.No.282 of 2010 with regard to imposing of the condition and thereby directing the petitioner to sign before the respondent police daily at 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. for one month. 2.Heard Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was implicated in the case under Section 294(b), 392 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and he was regularly attending the Court and on one occasion only, he could not appear before the Court and even a before a petition filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner. A petition was filed to cancel the NBW and the same was ordered with onerous conditions. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to appear before the said Court for all hearings without fail in the event of cancellation of the condition imposed by the said Court for cancelling the non bailable warrant. 4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that no doubt, the petitioner has been granted an order of cancellation of non bailable warrant passed against him with a condition to appear before the respondent police in the morning at 10.00 A.M. and in the evening at 5.00 P.M., but, on no occasion, the petitioner appeared before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent police and therefore, he has no right to seek for cancellation of the said conditions imposed on him. He would also submit that if for any reasons, this Court is inclined to set aside the conditions imposed against the petitioner, suitable directions may be issued against the petitioner to co- operate with the court to conduct the said case in an expeditious manner. 5.Considering the submissions made by both parties, this Court could see that the petitioner was ranked as an accused in C.C.No.282 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti and he absented himself on 15.11.2011, due to his bad health and therefore, non bailable warrant was issued by the said Court. The petitioner has applied for cancellation of non bailable warrant by surrendering himself before the said Court and the said Court had passed an order, cancelling the non bailable warrant with the condition to the petitioner to appear and sign before the respondent police station daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. without fail for a month. The said conditions imposed by the said Court is questioned now. There is no dispute that the petitioner had appeared before the said Court for all hearings except the hearing date on 15.11.2011. The case is now taken on file and the petitioner was given with all the papers and the trial is likely to be commenced in the near future. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also undertaken that he would appear before the said Court on all hearings and to co-operate with the Court for an expeditious disposal of the case. Since the petitioner is willing to dispose of the case at an earlier point of time by his sheer cooperation, this Court is inclined to set aside the condition imposed against him as per the order dated 30.11.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is ordered and the order dated 30.11.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.10785 of 2011 in C.C.No.282 of 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti is set aside. However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Court for all hearing dates without fail and to co-operate with the Court to have an expeditious trial and disposal of the said case. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To:1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin. 3.The Inspector of Police, Pasuvanthanai Polcie Station, Thoothukudi District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. RP/04.01.2012/2P/5C. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16239 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/