Madras High Court Dismisses the Criminal Revision Petition in Gurusamy’s Case

Must Read

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Mahindra Finance, Being a Purely Private Body: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Writ Petition against the purely private body is not maintainable and dismissed the petition which was filed against Mahindra Finance Bank as Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another.

Publication of Notices for Inter-Faith Marriages No Longer Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has passed a landmark judgment that likely brings relief to inter-faith marriage. The Court on Wednesday said that the mandatory publication of Notices of Inter-Faith marriages will now be optional to protect the Privacy and Liberty of the Couple. The Court observed that the publication of the notice would “invade the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy”. Therefore, it has made it optional for the couple, they can now request in form of writing to a marriage officer to publish or not to publish a notice regarding the marriage.

Follow us

This criminal revision case was filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the CrPC to call for the records connected with the order passed by the first respondent i.e., the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate in M.C. No. 447 of 2019 dated 17th February, 2020. To set aside the mentioned order as illegal. The petition seeks to set aside the mentioned order passed by the respondents. The case of Gurusamy v. The Sub divisional Executive Magistrate & Ors was heard by the Division Bench Judge Mrs. Justice R. Tharani.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner executed a bind under Section 110 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), in Crime No. 992 of 2019, Virudhunagar West Police Station. This order under Section 110 was passed against the petitioner. Against the order, the petitioner approached the Court for setting aside the impugned order. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The counsel for the Petitioner maintained that on 15th February, 2020, the first respondent issued summons for the appearance of the petitioner. 
  • On 17th February, 2020, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order and directed to detain the petitioner. On 16th, it is stated that the respondent did not furnish any copies of the document and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case. Mandatory requirements were not properly followed by the respondent and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.
  • It is further stated that a letter was sent to the petitioner, while he was in custody in the prison. He gave vakalath meaning  to Advocate. The advocate just filed the vakalath and he did not participate in any enquiry. 
  • The petitioner was produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer, i.e., the second respondent, only once on 14th February, 2020. It is contended that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the documents. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. The procedures were not duly followed and prayed the detention order to be set aside.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender and history sheeted accused and the history sheet was maintained in H.S.No.667 of 2007. 
  • Since he frequently involved in various crime activities, on request of the second respondent i.e., the Inspector of Police, after conducting proper enquiry, the first respondent directed the petitioner to execute a bond for security of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) under Section 110 of CrPC, for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. Accordingly, the petitioner executed a bond on 17th October, 2019. 
  • Thereafter, the second respondent sent a report dated 07th January, 2020 stating that on 04th January, 2020, again the petitioner got involved in a criminal offence and that a case was registered in Crime No.5 of 2020 for the offence under Section 341, 294(b) and 387 of IPC and requested the first respondent to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 122(1)(b) of CrPC.
  • In addition, it is stated that the earlier version of the petitioner is that the summon was served on the petitioner on 15th February, 2020. 
  • Without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed whereas the CD files reveal that the petitioner was present. The petitioner counsel was present on 23rd January, 2020. 
  • The petitioner and his counsel appeared on 27th January, 2020 and again on 14th, 15th and 17th February, 2020. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. 
  • The petitioner filed his detailed statement on 17th February, 2020. All the procedures are correctly followed and there is no necessity to set aside the impugned order.

Court’s Orders

The court held that enough opportunities were given to the petitioner. There are no procedural discrepancies in the impugned order. But the original offence is of the year 2018. The bond was executed only in the year 2019. The petitioner is in custody for approximately 9 months. He almost served 3/4th of the period mentioned of the detention order. 

The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the impugned order in M.C.No.447 of 2019 dated 17.02.2020, on the file of the first respondent was set aside.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Mahindra Finance, Being a Purely Private Body: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Writ Petition against the purely private body is not maintainable and dismissed the petition which was filed against Mahindra Finance Bank as Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another.

Publication of Notices for Inter-Faith Marriages No Longer Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has passed a landmark judgment that likely brings relief to inter-faith marriage. The Court on Wednesday said that the mandatory publication of Notices of Inter-Faith marriages will now be optional to protect the Privacy and Liberty of the Couple. The Court observed that the publication of the notice would “invade the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy”. Therefore, it has made it optional for the couple, they can now request in form of writing to a marriage officer to publish or not to publish a notice regarding the marriage.

Bombay High Court to NIA: Consider Health and Age of Varavara Rao Before Opposing His Bail Plea

The Bombay HC on Wednesday observed that ‘we are all humans’ and asked the National Investigation Agency and the Maharashtra Government to consider the health and age of the Telugu poet-activist Varavara Rao before making submissions in response to his bail plea application on medical grounds.

Supreme Court Agrees To Examine Centre’s Plea To Keep Adultery a Crime in Armed Forces

The Centre appealed to the Supreme court on Wednesday, pleading that the 2018 judgment of decriminalizing adultery under IPC must not apply to the armed forces. The Supreme Court in a path-breaking verdict in 2018 decriminalized adultery and declared all its provisions unconstitutional as it diminishes the value of women, but maintained that it continues to be a ground for divorce.

Supreme Court Examines the Pollution in Yamuna River for the Second Time

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made a second attempt to clean the Yamuna river by taking a Suo Moto Cognizance of significantly high levels of ammonia water discharged from neighbouring states like Haryana into Delhi.

Fetus Suffering From Anencephaly, Woman’s Plea To Terminate 28-Weeks Pregnancy Allowed by Delhi HC

Based on the report of the medical board constituted by AIIMS, the Delhi High Court on Monday allowed a petition filed by a woman seeking the termination of her 28-weeks pregnancy. They said in its report that the fetus suffered from anencephaly, a disorder where the skull bone is not developed and was thus incompatible with life, therefore her fetus can be aborted.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -