ORDER

This Revision has been filed to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.4597 of 2019 in C.C.No. 130 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, dated 03.02.2020.

2. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the third accused in this case has filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19285 of 2018 and in that case, this Court has passed an order of stay of all the proceedings in C.C.No.130 of 2011 for a period of four weeks. The personal appearance of the third accused was dispensed with by the order of this Court. In the above circumstances, since Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19285 of 2018, for quash is pending, before this Court, the case against all the accused was kept stayed by the trial Court.

3. The revision petitioners / A1, A2, A4 and A5 are suffering due to the stay of the case against the third accused. The petitioners filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.4597 of 2019 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, to split up the case against the third accused and to proceed with the case. That petition was dismissed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal. Against the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.167 of 2020.

4. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that when connected matter is pending before this Court, the trial Court is correct in dismissing the petition and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

5. It is seen that a case in C.C.No.130 of 2011 was registered against five persons. A person, by name, Ismail S/o. Hakkim, was mentioned in the F.I.R, but, in the charge sheet, his name was left out and the name of the present third accused was impleaded and hence, the third accused has filed a quash petition and the same is pending before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19285 of 2018. The proceedings of C.C.No.130 of 2011 was stayed by this Court for a period of four weeks. There is no valid stay order, after the completion of four weeks, but, the trial court has passed an order, dismissing the petition filed by this petitioners, stating that there is a stay by the High Court.

6.Today, this Court, by order, dated 02.02.2022, in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.

8675 of 2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19285 of 2018 has passed the following order:-

“When the matter was taken up for hearing today, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.19285 of 2018. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that after the completion of four weeks, stay order was not extended further, this Court finds that the accused Nos.1, 2,4 and 5 should not be prejudiced by the stay order.

Hence, the stay order passed in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8675 of 2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19285 of 2018, dated 30.08.2018, is hereby vacated”

7. In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to split up the case against the third accused and to proceed with the case against the accused Nos.

1,2,4 and 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

02.02.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Ls NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

(ii) Issue order copy on 18.02.2022.

To

1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, 2.The Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R. THARANI, J.

Ls

02.02.2022 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19285 of 2018 R.THARANI.,J.

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19285 of 2018. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that after the completion of four weeks, stay order was not extended further, this Court finds that the accused Nos.1, 2,4 and 5 shoul