Madras High Court
Chinnappa Gounder vs State on 9 February, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16509 of 2017 & 13090 of 2021
1.Chinnappa Gounder
2.Pachamauthu
3.Angamuthu @ Thangaraj
4.C.Semalai Gounder ... Petitioners/Accused 1,2,3&5
Vs.
State,
By its Inspector of Police,
Ammapettai Police Station,
Ammapettai, Erode District,
(Crime No.373 of 2005) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside order in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.1422 of
2017, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode and to transfer
the Calendar case in C.C.No.130 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Bhavani to any other Judicial Magistrate in Erode District.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Page No.1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the
order in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.1422 of 2017, on the file of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Erode and to transfer the Calendar case in C.C.No.130 of 2016, on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani to any other Judicial
Magistrate in Erode District.
2.The petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.130 of 2016, on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani facing trial for offences under
Sections 419, 467, 468, 471 r/w 109 IPC, have filed this petition.
3.The gist of the complaint is that the defacto complainant
Gurusamy had lodged a complaint stating that on 17.04.1968, his father
late Gurusamy Gounder had inherited 2 acres of agricultural land in
R.S.No.120 and 121/1 of Illipilli Village, Bhavani Taluk along with the
rights in the electricity connection and motor pumpset. On 14.01.2004,
his father passed away due to ill health. Thereafter, the property had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
devolved on the defacto complainant and his mother Mariammal. A1 in
this case is the junior paternal uncle of the defacto complainant and A2 &
A3 are the sons of A1. A4 and A5 are the friends of A1. A1 to A3 had
created a forged Will on 08.01.2004 and got it registered as Document
No.1 of 2004, at SRO Ammapettai and claim rights over the property.
The Thumb impression would prove that it is not that of the defacto
complainant's father late Gurusamy. Hence, the accused have created a
forged Will and attempted to take away of property of the defacto
complainant.
4.The contention of the petitioners is that the said late Gurusamy
Gounder had married one Mariammal Daughter of Sidhagounder @
Dinnugounder of Edapadi Taluk. The said Mariammal deserted her
husband Gurusamy within few months of marriage, thereafter, she was
living with one Chinnathambi of Pudhupatti, Poolampatti Village,
Edapadi Taluk. Out of the relationship with Chinnathambi, the defacto
complainant Gurusamy in C.C.No.130 of 2016 was born. In the school
certificate, birth certificate and in all documents of the defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
complainant Gurusamy, it is recorded that he is the son of Chinnathambi.
Thus, the defacto complainant Gurusamy has no right to lodge a false
complaint on the inheritance of the property. The petitioner/complainant
G.Suseela, who is the adopted daughter of late Gurusamy Gounder, had
initially lodged a private complaint before the District Crime Branch,
Erode in Crime.No.12 of 2010 and the case was closed as mistake of fact
and RCS.No.06 of 2010 dated 06.08.2010 was served to her. Therefore,
she filed a petition in CMP.No.2076 of 2017 which was dismissed,
against which, she preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No.65 of 2017,
before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. The II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, on 12.01.2022, by partly
allowing the Criminal Revision case, set aside the order passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in C.M.P.No.2076 of 2017 dated
15.11.2017 and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, to comply
with the requirements under Section 204 Cr.P.C in respect of R1 to R8.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is also
a civil case pending in respect of the said property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
petitioners, due to the pendency of the above petition, had kept the trial
pending in C.C.No.130 of 2006 for the past several years. He further
submitted that there are only nine witnesses in this case and all these nine
witnesses have been examined and therefore, the trial can be completed
within a period of three months.
7. The defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners earlier
filed discharge petitions in C.M.P. Nos. 4819, 4968, 4421 and 4967 of
2016, thereafter, the discharge petitions were dismissed. The petitioners
represented before the lower Court that they have preferred the revision
and obtained stay. Since no order copy was produced, the trial Court
proceeded with the trial, against which, the present petition filed seeking
transfer on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani had
prejudged the issue and had not conducted a fair trial. He further
submitted that the pendency of the trial before the Chief Judical
Magistrate, is in no way connected with the present case. By filing one
petition or the other, the accused are stalling the trial in C.C.No.130 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
2006. He further submitted that the revision petitions filed against the
discharge petitions in Crl.R.C.Nos.1059 to 1062 of 2017, later had been
withdrawn.
8.Considering the submissions and on a perusal of the materials, it
is seen that in C.C.No.130 of 2006, there are nine witnesses and the case
is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. On the private
complaint in C.M.P. No.2076 of 2017, filed by G.Suseela claiming
herself to be the adopted daughter of late Gurusamy Gounder, is now
being directed to be taken on file on the orders of the II Additional
Sessions Judge, Erode in Crl.R.C.No.65 of 2017 and directed to proceed
with the case under Section 204 Cr.P.C and further, in this case, there are
only four witnesses. On a perusal of the materials, it is seen that the
complaints in both the cases seems to be whether the defacto
complainant Gurusamy in C.C.No.130 of 2006 is the son of late
Gurusamy Gounder born to Gurusamy Gounder and Mariammal or
G.Suseela is the adopted daughter of Gurusamy Gounder and the issue is
forgery of Will.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
9.The sum and substance is to enjoy the property of two acres in
R.S.No.120 and 121 along with the electricity connection and motor
pumpset. This Court feels that it would be appropriate that both cases to
be tried simultaneously, the only condition is that the witnesses to be
examined separately, evidence to be recorded separately, judgment to be
passed on the same date. Since in both cases, witnesses are only limited
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode to give preference and to complete
the trial in the two cases within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
09.02.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
sli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani.
3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Ammapettai Police Station,
Ammapettai, Erode District.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
sli
CRL.O.P.No.29210 of 2017
09.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
