Madras High Court
V.Sivarasu vs State Rep.By on 17 December, 2021
Crl.O.P. No.10239 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. No.10239 of 2017
and CRL.M.P.Nos.6763 &6764 of 2017
V.Sivarasu ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Salem District
(Crime No.6 of 2013)
2.C.Krishnan ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and quash the entire criminal
proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
I, Mettur as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner :Mr.T.Saikrishnan for M/s.Sai
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.side) for R1
No appearance for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
Crl.O.P. No.10239 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and
quash the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2016 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur as against the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 419, 465, 468 , 471 and 420 of IPC @ 120(b), 419, 465, 468,
471 and 420 of IPC.
2. The petitioner has been arrayed as A8 in C.C.No.210 of 2016.
The crux of the prosecution case is that the property has been transferred in the
name of defacto complainant by his wife. It has been transferred clandestinely
by impersonating the defacto complainant in the name of A1. Thereafter, again
the same was transferred to A2. Hence, A1 and A2 along with other accused
were conspired together and impersonated the defacto complainant. Thereby,
they committed the aforesaid offence and final report has been filed against
them for the offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of
IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that A8 is merely a
document writer and he is no way connected with the alleged impersonation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No.10239 of 2017
the earlier document registered in favour of A1, whereas, he has registered the
subsequent documents. Therefore, he cannot be fastened with the criminal
liability.
4. At the outset, I am of the view that when the materials unearthed by
the prosecution indicate creating the forged documents and conspiracy charge
is also stare against the present petitioner, only the Trial Court has to appreciate
the evidence. This Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a roving enquiry or decide or probe into the evidence at
this stage, which have to be gone into only during the trial. Such being the
position, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the Trial
Court to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks indulgence of this Court to grant an order dispensing with the personal
appearance of the petitioner. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the
petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No.10239 of 2017
answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., passing of
judgment, or on any other date as may be required by the trial Court.
17.12.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
msv/nr
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Salem District
2. The Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No.10239 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
msv/nr
Crl. O.P. No.10239 of 2017
and CRL.M.P.Nos.6763 &6764 of 2017
17.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
