Madras High Court
R.Revathi Rajagopal vs R.M.Veerappan on 3 January, 2022
Crl. O.P. Nos.18962 and 18973 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 3/1/2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. Nos.18962 and 18973 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.11507 to 11510 of 2017
and
3299 and 3301 of 2019
R.Revathi Rajagopal ... Petitioner in both
the petitions
Vs
R.M.Veerappan
rep. By his Power of Attorney
Mr.M.Ganesan
Saminathapuram
Salem 636 009. ... Respondent in both
the petitions
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to S.T.C.Nos.1049 and 1050 of 2016, on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem and quash the same.
Page No:1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.18962 and 18973 of 2017
For Petitioner ... Mr.Shanmuga Velayutham
Senior Counsel
for Mr.T.Vijayaraghavan
For Respondent ... Mr.S.Kalyanaraman
-----
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash
S.T.C.Nos.1049 and 1050 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.5, Salem.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The point canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner is that there is no specific assertion made in the complaint filed by
the Power Agent of the complainant that he was aware of the entire
transaction. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in
A.C.NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
(2014) 11 SUPREME COURT CASES 790, wherein it is held that whenever
Page No:2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.18962 and 18973 of 2017
a complaint is filed by a Power Agent, the complainant is required to make his
specific assertions as to the knowledge of the Power of Attorney holder for the
said transaction “explicitly” in the complaint.
4. In fact, the petition filed by the Power Agent itself indicate that there
are sufficient averments to show that he was personally aware of the loan
transaction made between the complainant and accused. Whether the Power
Agent is aware of the transaction or not cannot be decided in this quash
petition. It can be seen only during the time of trial. In such a view of the
matter, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings.
5. In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner. Taking into
consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the
petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies,
answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., or on any other
Page No:3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.18962 and 18973 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
mvs.
date as may be required by the trial Court. They shall be represented by a
counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, when they are
examined in Chief.
Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
3/1/2022
mvs
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem
Crl. O.P. Nos.18962 and 18973 of 2017
Page No:4/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
