Madras High Court
Senthilnayagam vs The State Rep. By on 12 November, 2021
1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 6138 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6138 of 2021 and
CRL.M.P.(MD)Nos.3524 & 3526 of 2021
Senthilnayagam ... Petitioner / 3rd Accused
Vs.
1. The State rep. By,
The Sub Inspector of Police,
CCIW Offence Wing,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.2 of 2011) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2. The Deputy Registrar,
O/o. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thukkalai,
Kanyakumari District. ... 2nd Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.35 of 2012
pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District and quash the same against
the petitioner concerned.
For Petitioner : M/s.N.Tamilmani
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 6138 OF 2021
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing
the proceedings in C.C.No.35 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, as far as
the petitioner is concerned.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the officials of
Munchirai Primary Agriculture and Rural Development Bank
Ltd., Marthandam conspired with the first accused
Palanimurugan and granted him loan to the tune of
Rs.2,70,000/-, even though he did not offer proper collateral
security. In this regard, Crime No.2 of 2011 was registered on
the file of the first respondent. Investigation was taken up and
final report was filed against as many as 13 accused. The
petitioner was working as Assistant Development Officer in
the said bank during the relevant time. The specific stand of
the petitioner is that even if the entire case of the prosecution
is taken as true, there is no material to implicate him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 6138 OF 2021
3. Per contra the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that there are materials to implicate the petitioner
herein and that therefore no case for quashing has been made
out.
4. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went
through the materials on record.
5. It is stated that the duties and responsibilities of the
petitioner included verification as to whether the property
offered as security will cover the entire loan amount. The
petitioner was also expected to make field visit and verify the
genuineness of the security offered by the borrower. In the
case on hand according to the prosecution, the security
offered by the principal accused Palanimurugan was
non-existent. That is why, when the petitioner filed Cr.M.P.
No.4706 of 2015 for discharging himself in that case, the
learned trial Magistrate by order dated 14.02.2020 dismissed
the same. In paragraph No.10 of the said order, the trial Court
had given a finding that there is a prima facie case to frame
charge against the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 6138 OF 2021
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor draws my
attention to the statement given by Mr.Jeyasingh, the then
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thoothukudi,
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The said list witness has
stated that in the name of Palanimurugan, there was no
property. The petitioner herein who was the Assistant
Development Officer ought to have rejected the loan
application. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contested the stand of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor as regards the duties and responsibilities of the
Assistant Development Officer.
7. I am afraid that this contentious issue cannot be gone
into in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Leaving
open all the petitioner's rights, contentions and defences, this
criminal original petition is dismissed. However, taking note of
the overall facts and circumstances of this case and the age of
the petitioner, his personal appearance before the Court below
is dispensed with. However, the petitioner has to appear
before the Court below on the following three occasions:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 6138 OF 2021
i) To answer the charges,
ii) at the time of examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
and
iii) at the time of pronouncement of Judgment.
The petitioner also will have to appear when his presence is
insisted upon by the trial Court and on all other occasions, the
petitioner can be represented by his counsel. If the
petitioner's counsel also fails to appear, the benefit of this
order will stand vacated automatically.
8. The learned trial Magistrate is directed to conclude
the proceedings on merits and in accordance with law within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
11.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 6138 OF 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
To:
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
CCIW Offence Wing,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.2 of 2011)
2. The Deputy Registrar,
O/o. The Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies,
Thukkalai,
Kanyakumari District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6138 of 2021
11.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
