Madras High Court
A.Jane Sugirthabai vs State Rep. By on 24 November, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
and
CRL.M.P.No.11836 of 2021
A.Jane Sugirthabai ... Petitioner
Vs
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch,
Chennai.
(Crime No.260 of 2015) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the
dismissal order dated 25.10.2021 passed in the petition filed under
Section 91 of Cr.P.C vide Crl.M.P.No.19889 of 2021 in C.C.No.6796 of
2016 by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the Special Court for CCB
& CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the
dismissal order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.19889 of 2021 in
C.C.No.6796 of 2016 by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the
Special Court for CCB & CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent.
3.The petitioner herein, who is the defacto complainant, had
lodged a complaint, which was registered in Crime No.260 of 2015 for
the offences under Section 406, 423, 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. On
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed in
C.C.No.6796 of 2016, which is now pending trial before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB & CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai.
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that in this case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
prosecution had examined PW1 to PW8 and thereafter the proceedings
under Section 313(1)(b) were completed. A1, in this case, had entered
into the box and examined himself as DW1 and he had marked Exhibits
D1 to D5 to prove the fact that a Civil Suit is pending between the
petitioner and the accused in O.S.Nos.6732 of 2009 and 7473 of 2009
before the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in which the
petitioner had filed a written statement admitting the conveyance of the
property to the accused on receipt of a sale consideration. The said
exhibits are extracted hereunder:-
i) Ex.D.1 Vakalat filed by Jane Sugirtha Bai &
Agoliab Samuel in (defendants 1 & 2) in
O.S.No.7473/2009 on the file of VII Assistant City Civil
Court, Chennai.
ii) Ex.D.2 Written Statement filed by Agoliab Samuel
(2nd Defendant) in O.S.No.7473/2009 on the file of VII
Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
iii) Ex.D.3 Memo filed by Jane Sugirthabai and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
Agoliab Samuel in I.A.15469/2009 in O.S.No.7473/2009
on the file of VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
iv) Ex.D.4 Memo of appearance filed by Jane
Sugirthabai (to adopt the Written Statement of Agoliab
Samuel 2nd Defendant) in O.S.No.7473/2009 on the file of
VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
v) Ex.D.5 Common Judgment in O.S.No.7473/2009
& O.S.No.6732/2009 on the file of VII Assistant City Civil
Court, Chennai.
5.The grievance of the petitioner is that the vakalat and the
memo/written statement were not filed by the petitioner and the accused
have forged the signatures of the petitioner and her husband by making a
false representation before the Civil Court. Further, for the purpose of
proving the forgery, the original documents have to be perused, which
was not done in this case. It is also stated that only the certified copy of
the document has been produced, by which the forgery of the petitioner's
signature cannot be proved. Subsequently, the prosecution had filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C before the Lower Court calling for
the original documents. The Lower Court, having found that the petition
has been filed at a belated stage and it would preclude the proceedings,
had dismissed the petition, which would cause great injustice and
prejudice to the petitioner. The Trial Court, after dismissing the Section
91 petition on 25.10.2021, had posted the case for arguments on
15.11.2021 and thereafter, the matter came on 18.11.2021. At this
juncture, the petitioner, finding that the prosecution had not filed any
petition against the dismissal of Section 91 petition, had filed the present
petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is
now posted on 26.11.2021 and hence, he prays that unless these five
documents, which are already available in the Registry of City Civil
Court, is produced for proving the forgery committed by the accused,
serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.
7.This Court finds that summoning and production of original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
documents might take some time, since the suits in O.S.Nos.6732 of
2009 and 7473 of 2009 have been disposed of on 03.11.2010 itself, but
that does not mean that the right of the accused as the defacto
complainant cannot be denied. The delay in production of documents
would only be beneficial to arrive a just decision. Hence, this Court is of
the view that a time limit shall be fixed for summoning the documents,
which are available in the Registry of the Civil Court.
8. In the light of the above observation, this Court set asides the
order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.19889 of 2021 in
C.C.No.6796 of 2016 and directs the Registry of the City Civil Court to
produce the original documents i.e., Exhibits D1 - D5, before the Trial
Court and thereafter mark the documents and if required forward the
same to the Forensic Expert. Further, after receiving the original
documents from the Registry and the report of the Forensic Expert, the
Trial Court shall conclude the proceedings. The entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
7.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is
disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.11.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
ata/hvk
To
The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
ata/hvk
CRL.O.P.No.21810 of 2021
and
CRL.M.P.No.11836 of 2021
24.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
