V.Stalin vs State Rep. By
2024 Latest Caselaw 2035 Mad

Madras High Court

V.Stalin vs State Rep. By on 1 February, 2024

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                            Crl.O.P.(MD)No.753 of 2022


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED: 01.02.2024

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                            Crl.O.P.(MD) No.753 of 2022
                                                       and
                                        Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.546 and 547 of 2022


                     V.Stalin                                               ... Petitioner/A2
                                                             Vs.
                     1.State Rep. by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       District Crime Branch,
                       Dindigul District.
                       Crime No.31 of 2019                         ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.K.P.Monika                           ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
                     Cr.P.C, to call for the records pursuant to the proceedings in C.C.No.118
                     of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and
                     quash the same in respect of this petitioner/A2.

                                     For petitioner       : Mr.R.Vignesh

                                     For R-1              : Mr.S.Manikandan
                                                           Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

                                     For R-2              : Mr.J.Lawrance



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/6
                                                                       Crl.O.P.(MD)No.753 of 2022


                                                      ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.118 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul .

2.The case of the prosecution is that first accused, by name

Rohini, had played fraud on Court along with her Advocates including

the petitioner herein, by filing a forged compromise memo to raise the

order of attachment passed by the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. Hence,

the second respondent made a complaint before the first respondent

Police and the first respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.31 of

2019 against the petitioner and the respondent Police conducted the

investigation and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet has

been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and the

learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance in C.C.No.118 of 2021

for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 466, 468,

471 and 120B of IPC.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and there

is no specific allegation made against the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would

submit that there are materials available to proceed with the case as

against the petitioner herein and at the threshold, the criminal

proceedings cannot be quashed and the charges against the petitioner

have to be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, he prayed for

dismissal of the petition.

5.In the above circumstances, the trial court has rightly

taken the case on file and this Court is of the considered view that no

prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if he is subjected to due trial

as sufficient opportunity would be given to the petitioner to put forth his

defence. The petitioner cannot be let by quashing the charges framed

against him as that would completely undermine the alleged act, which is

the subject matter of criminal trial pending against them. Useful

reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426).

6.For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground or

scope to quash C.C.No.118 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. Accordingly, this Criminal Original https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions

are closed.

7.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that this Court may consider to dispense with the

personal appearance of the petitioner before the court below. Taking into

consideration the request as made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the appearance of the petitioner before the trial court is

dispensed with except for his appearance for the purpose of receiving the

copy of the proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which judgment is to be

pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the presence of the

petitioner is necessary, the trial court, at its wisdom, shall direct his

appearance on those days.

01.02.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SJI To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District.

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

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

M.DHANDAPANI. J.

SJI

01.02.2024

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