Abdul Wahab vs S.Mohamed Abdulla
2022 Latest Caselaw 7609 Mad

                                                                         Crl.O.P(MD).No.19713 of 2021



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 11.04.2022

                                                         CORAM :

                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                          Crl.O.P(MD).No.19713 of 2021
                                                      and
                                        Crl.M.P.Nos.11063 & 11064 of 2021



                Abdul Wahab                                                    ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.
                S.Mohamed Abdulla                                               ... Respondent




                PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
                Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records pertaining to the
                impugned order in C.C.No.67 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
                No.I, Tirunelveli and quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned.


                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
                                                             for M/s.Veera Associates
                                        For Respondent      : Mr.C.D.Johnson




                1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                             Crl.O.P(MD).No.19713 of 2021

                                                          ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the

records pertaining to the impugned order in C.C.No.67 of 2013 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and quash the same as far as the petitioner

is concerned.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire

transaction is between the respondent family and the other accused persons,

whereas, the petitioner, who has been power agent to the subsequent

transactions, has been unnecessarily dragged into the case. He would further

submit that arraying the petitioner as an accused in this case is purely illegal.

3. Mr.C.D.Johnson, learned counsel representing the

complainant/respondent would submit that the trial has been commenced in this

case and there are only two witnesses in this case. The complainant has been

examined as PW1 and only SRO remains to be examined on the side of the

complainant. He would further submit that the trial Judge finding the materials

against the petitioner, has framed charges and it is a matter for trial. He would

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.19713 of 2021

also submit that the respondent/complainant had earlier approached this Court

in Crl.O.P(MD).No.16537 of 2021 and this Court by order dated 28.10.2021

had disposed the application directing the trial Judge to complete the trial within

a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials available on

record.

5. This Court is of the opinion that the ground raised by the petitioner

are factual in nature and that can be tested only during the trial and this Court is

of the considered view that there is no legal points to quash.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is a sitting MLA and he would pray that the personal

appearance of the petitioner may be dispensed with before the trial Court. He

would also submit that the petitioner will be duly represented by a counsel on

all hearing dates before the trial Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.19713 of 2021

7. Accepting the said submission, the presence of the petitioner before

the trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that he shall be present for

questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing judgment

and whenever insisted upon by the trial court.

8. 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 that 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

trial Court to insist for their appearance and deal with the petitioners in

accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar

Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.19713 of 2021

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

11.04.2022

rgi/ham Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

To

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.19713 of 2021

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.

rgi/ham

Crl.O.P(MD).No.19713 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 11063 & 11064 of 2021

11.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis