Madras High Court
I.Nadesan vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 November, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8571 of 2024
I.Nadesan : Petitioner/Defacto Complainant
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch/ALGSC,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
Crime No.31 of 2012 : 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Rajendran
3.Selvarani
4.Thangamani : 2 to 4 Respondents/Accused
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C.
(u/s 447 of BNSS 2023), to transfer C.C.No.43 of 2020 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil to any other District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.M.P.Senthil for R2 and R3
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner/defacto complainant had lodged a complaint against
the respondents 2 to 4 before the first respondent police and a case in
Crime No.31 of 2012 was registered for the offences under Sections
120(B), 420, 423, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the trustee of Sri
Bala Vinayagar Temple. The temple owned a land in S.No.7189, New
S.No.191/5 to an extent of 14.25 cents in Madusoodanapuram Village,
which was gifted by one Ponnusamy Nadar s/o Thanganadar and
Kangapasabapathy s/o Periyaneela Nadar by way of gift in the year 1972
vide document No.3031/1972. The respondents 2 to 4 conspired together
and created a forged unregistered Will dated 15.12.1992 as if the father of
the second respondent, namely, Narayana Vadivu Nadar, executed the
same in favour of the second respondent/A1. The second respondent, who
in turn executed a settlement deed dated 13.12.2006 in favour of the third
respondent in Document No.4142/2006 and the fourth respondent/A3 is
the witness to the forged Will dated 15.12.1992. Thus, the respondents 2
to 4 have jointly created the forged documents, mutated their names in the
revenue records and attempted to grab the temple property. To cover up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
the criminality committed, the third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.239
of 2010 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil and the same
was decreed on 13.06.2023 in her favour. Against which, the petitioner
filed an appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Nagercoil.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent is an
Advocate and the local bar is a vibrant bar, the petitioner fears a fair trial.
The safety of the petitioner as well as the witnesses is questionable.
Though the petitioner is aged about 70 years, he is willing to travel to a
faraway place, taking into consideration the threat and fear. Hence, he
seeks for transfer of trial from Nagercoil to a nearby District.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 strongly opposed
the petitioner's contention, submitting that they had not committed any
offence against the petitioner and the petitioner had participated in the
civil suit, not even on one occasion. For the first time to cause harassment
to the respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner makes such false allegations. The
civil suit had been conducted from the year 2010-23 and thereafter, the
petitioner has also filed the appeal and all these years, both the petitioner
and the private respondents have been participating in the civil suit before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
the Courts in Nagercoil. The respondents 2 and 3 have got no serious
objection to transferring the case. He further submitted that the
respondents 2 and 3 are senior citizens and hence, this Court may dispense
with their personal appearance before the trial Court. He further submitted
that the respondents 2 and 3 undertake that they are ready to appear at the
time 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 and when the trial Court directs for their
appearance. The respondents 2 and 3 would not be a reason for stalling the
trial, infact the trial itself can be completed within the stipulated period.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that for the
defence of witnesses, the case can be transferred to a nearby District
preferably, the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor.
6.Considering the submissions of the respondents 2 and 3 having no
serious objections and the first respondent is ready to produce the
witnesses without any delay, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the case in C.C.No.43 of 2020 is
from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil to the file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor Court. The learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil is directed to transmit the entire case records to
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor Court. The learned Judicial
Magistrate, Valliyoor is directed not to insist on the presence of the
appearance of the respondents 2 and 3, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Further, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the
case within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.11.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.
3.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch/ALGSC,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
sji
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13849 of 2024
06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
