Madras High Court
I.Nadesan vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 November, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8571 of 2024
I.Nadesan : Petitioner/Defacto Complainant
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch/ALGSC,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
Crime No.31 of 2012 : 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Rajendran
3.Selvarani
4.Thangamani : 2 to 4 Respondents/Accused
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C.
(u/s 447 of BNSS 2023), to transfer C.C.No.43 of 2020 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil to any other District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.M.P.Senthil for R2 and R3
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner/defacto complainant had lodged a complaint against the respondents 2 to 4 before the first respondent police and a case in Crime No.31 of 2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 423, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the trustee of Sri Bala Vinayagar Temple. The temple owned a land in S.No.7189, New S.No.191/5 to an extent of 14.25 cents in Madusoodanapuram Village, which was gifted by one Ponnusamy Nadar s/o Thanganadar and Kangapasabapathy s/o Periyaneela Nadar by way of gift in the year 1972 vide document No.3031/1972. The respondents 2 to 4 conspired together and created a forged unregistered Will dated 15.12.1992 as if the father of the second respondent, namely, Narayana Vadivu Nadar, executed the same in favour of the second respondent/A1. The second respondent, who in turn executed a settlement deed dated 13.12.2006 in favour of the third respondent in Document No.4142/2006 and the fourth respondent/A3 is the witness to the forged Will dated 15.12.1992. Thus, the respondents 2 to 4 have jointly created the forged documents, mutated their names in the revenue records and attempted to grab the temple property. To cover up 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024 the criminality committed, the third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.239 of 2010 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil and the same was decreed on 13.06.2023 in her favour. Against which, the petitioner filed an appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Nagercoil.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent is an Advocate and the local bar is a vibrant bar, the petitioner fears a fair trial. The safety of the petitioner as well as the witnesses is questionable. Though the petitioner is aged about 70 years, he is willing to travel to a faraway place, taking into consideration the threat and fear. Hence, he seeks for transfer of trial from Nagercoil to a nearby District.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 strongly opposed the petitioner's contention, submitting that they had not committed any offence against the petitioner and the petitioner had participated in the civil suit, not even on one occasion. For the first time to cause harassment to the respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner makes such false allegations. The civil suit had been conducted from the year 2010-23 and thereafter, the petitioner has also filed the appeal and all these years, both the petitioner and the private respondents have been participating in the civil suit before 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024 the Courts in Nagercoil. The respondents 2 and 3 have got no serious objection to transferring the case. He further submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 are senior citizens and hence, this Court may dispense with their personal appearance before the trial Court. He further submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 undertake that they are ready to appear at the time of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which, judgment is to be pronounced and when the trial Court directs for their appearance. The respondents 2 and 3 would not be a reason for stalling the trial, infact the trial itself can be completed within the stipulated period.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that for the defence of witnesses, the case can be transferred to a nearby District preferably, the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor.
6.Considering the submissions of the respondents 2 and 3 having no serious objections and the first respondent is ready to produce the witnesses without any delay, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the case in C.C.No.43 of 2020 is from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil to the file 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil is directed to transmit the entire case records to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor is directed not to insist on the presence of the appearance of the respondents 2 and 3, unless it is absolutely necessary. Further, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.11.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.
3.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch/ALGSC,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
sji
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
06.11.2024
6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis