S.Rohini vs The Inspector Of Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 4934 Mad

Madras High Court

S.Rohini vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 March, 2024

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                          Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8935 of 2022


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED: 04.03.2024

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                            Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8935 of 2022
                                                       and
                                            Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5989 of 2022


                     S.Rohini                                                       ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs.
                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       District Crime Branch,
                       Dindigul District.
                       Crime No.31 of 2019

                     2.Monika                                                ...Respondents
                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
                     Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating with impugned charge sheet in
                     C.C.No.118 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
                     Dindigul.
                                     For petitioner            : Mr.S.Saravanakumar

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

                                                          ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.118 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 406, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

420, 466, 468, 471 and 120B IPC on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.

2. It is seen that a suit in O.S.No.291 of 2018 was pending

between the petitioner and the second respondent. While so, the

petitioner has obtained orders from the concerned Court in her favour by

forging the signature of the second respondent. Hence, the complaint.

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 as against the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the respondent Police would submit that all those points

raised before this Court is a triable issue, which cannot be canvassed

before this Court and it can be canvassed only at the time of trial.

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

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 him. 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 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition

is dismissed. Consequently, connnected miscellaneous petition is

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

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

appearance on those days.

04.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TSG

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.

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

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

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

M.DHANDAPANI. J.

TSG

04.03.2024

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