Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

P.Arthi vs The State Represented By

Madras High Court|17 November, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5776 of 2012
1.The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.59 of 2012)
2.Sugumar ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5777 of 2012
1.The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.59 of 2012)
2.Arun ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5778 of 2012 Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District in Cr.M.P.Nos.1256, 1274 and 1255 of 2012 vide orders dated 17.04.2012 and set aside the same.
These Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to the orders passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District in Cr.M.P.Nos.1256, 1274 and 1255 of 2012 vide orders dated 17.04.2012 and set aside the same.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents are working as Lecturer in an Arts College. The victim girl studied under the first accused in his tuition centre. By believing the words of the first accused, the victim girl fell in love with the first accused. The accused persons gave seductive mixed cool drink to the victim girl and after drinking that cool drink the victim girl had gone to subconscious and by taking advantage of the position of the victim girl the accused persons raped her and the graphed the intercourse as video and photograph in his mobile phone and thereafter the victim girl attempted to commit suicide and the mother of the victim girl after knowing the truth from her daughter filed a complaint before the respondent police against the accused persons. The respondent police registered a case and they arrested the accused persons and remanded them in judicial custody.
4. The accused persons were filed the bail application before the Lower Court. The previous three applications of the accused persons for bail were dismissed by the lower Court and they released on bail vide order dated 17.04.2012 in their fourth application, since the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had no objection for granting bail to the accused persons. On the ground that the said bail was granted contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present Criminal Original Petitions are filed to set aside the order passed by the Lower Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that after seven years, the petitioner has not pressed the criminal original petitions. However, the respondents committed such heinous offence against the victim girl, who lost her life. This matter cannot be viewed as leniency. Till today, the trial has not been completed and the decision was not arrived to render justice to the affected people. This Court may issue necessary direction to the Lower Court to complete the trial,
6.In view of the above, this Court find there is some force in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court directs the Lower Court to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on the file of the Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.2 of 2015.
7.With the above direction, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of.
To:
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Mahila Court, Thoothukudi.
3.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

P.Arthi vs The State Represented By

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
17 November, 2017