Madras High Court
Tmt.Rumena Magdelene vs The Station House Officer on 18 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.05.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Criminal Revision Case No.598 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.6302 of 2022
Tmt.Rumena Magdelene ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Station House Officer,
Odiansalai Police Station,
Puducherry.
Nagarajan (Died – charge Abated)
2.Martel Alexander Joseph ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to
set aside the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in Cr.M.P.No.2298/2019 in
C.C.No.542/2019 by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry by
allowing the Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.D.Rajendra Prasad
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor – for R1
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the dismissal of the
discharge petition filed by the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A3 in the
final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The case of the prosecution is that the property in question originally
belonged to one Sindariammalle Moselle and she died in the year 1990 and the
defacto complainant and others succeeded to the said property. While so,
forged documents were created by one Nagarajan in connivance with A2 and
A3 and a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the
allegation against the accused persons is that they created fabricated
documents and thereby cheated the defacto complainant and others.
3. The petitioner filed the discharge petition on the ground that she is a
bonafide purchaser for value and she has nothing to do with the alleged
offence. That apart, she also filed a suit for permanent injunction and the
same was decreed exparte in her favour. Therefore according to the petitioner,
no offence has been made out against her.
4. Heard Mr.S.V.D.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent.
5. The Court below has gone into the grounds raised by the petitioner
and has assigned sufficient reasons for dismissing the discharge petition. The
Court below specifically found that there are prima facie materials against the
petitioner to believe that she has entered into the transaction knowing fully
well that the document in question is a forged document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no ground to
interfere with the order passed by the Court below and it does not suffer from
any illegality. One of the charges against the petitioner is that all the accused
persons have committed the criminal act in furtherance of a common intention.
The same will get unraveled only in the course of trial. It will therefore be left
open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds during the course of trial.
7. Taking into consideration the request made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
personal appearance of the petitioner shall be dispensed with and she shall be
represented through a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the
same day they are examined in chief. The petitioner will not be permitted to
dispute the identity of any of the witnesses. The petitioner shall be present
before the Court at the time of questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at
the time of passing of the final judgment.
8. This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.05.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
KST
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.
KST
To
1. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Puducherry
2.The Station House Officer,
Odiansalai Police Station,
Puducherry.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Madras.
Crl.R.C. No.598 of 2022
18.05.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
