Madras High Court
Murugan vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.259 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.80 & 82 of 2022
Murugan,
S/o.Tikkaram ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CCB-II, Chennai.
(Crime No.177 of 2019)
2.Nishanth Kumar,
S/o.Baskar ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for
the records in C.C.No.22 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Special
Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tiruvallur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.U.Pressanna
For Respondents :
For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, to call for the records
in C.C.No.22 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for
Land Grabbing Cases, Tiruvallur and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he
would further submit that the petitioner is only an attesting witness and he has
not committed any criminal offences.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent
would submit that the petitioner knowing very well that the A-1 has fabricated
the documents by impersonating herself as wife of late Baskar, who is the real
owner of the property and the petitioner knowing well about the same had
attested the documents. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
further submit that whether the petitioner is aware of the fraud or not can only
be decided during the course of trial. He would further submit that the trial has
also commenced and PW1 has been examined. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/5
4. This Court is of the view that all the grounds can be raised before
the trial Court and there is no merits in the quash petition.
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
prayed that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, may
be dispensed with.
6. Accepting the said submission, the presence of the petitioner before
the trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that he shall be present on
the first day of appearance, on the date fixed for receiving the copies, initial
questioning, reply to charges and questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and
at the time of passing judgment and whenever insisted upon by the Trial Court.
7. The petitioner is further directed to give an undertaking in the form
of affidavit that he will be duly represented by a counsel on all hearing dates
and that the Counsel representing him will cross-examine the prosecution
witnesses on the same day they are examined in chief. The petitioner shall not
dispute the identity of the witnesses. The petitioner shall appear before the
Court in the event his presence is insisted by the Trial Judge for the purpose of
identification. If the petitioner adopts any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/5
Trial Court to insist for his appearance and deal with the petitioner in
accordance with the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition dismissed. The
connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
06.04.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
rgm/arb
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Special Court
for Land Grabbing Cases,
Tiruvallur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
CCB-II, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rgm/arb
Crl.O.P.No.259 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.80 & 82 of 2022
06.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
