Madras High Court
S.Rathinam vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3404 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3404 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3092 of 2023
S.Rathinam ... Petitioner/A2
vs.
1.The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
B3, Teppakulam Police Station (Crime),
Teppakulam,
Madurai District.
Crime No.576 of 2023 ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Jaheer Hussain ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for
the records on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Madurai, in C.C.No.160 of 2011 which is registered against the petitioner
and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan
For R1 : Mr.A.Albert James
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3404 of 2023
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition is filed with a prayer to call for
the records on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Madurai, in C.C.No.160 of 2011.
2.The allegation against the petitioner/accused in the said case is
that when they sold the property to the defacto complainant, Jaheer
Hussain, subsequently, in respect of the very same property, the third
accused executed a settlement deed in favour of the family members and
thus, cheated the defacto complainant and hence, the charges under
Sections 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
simultaneously the matter was also pending in the civil Court. The accused
persons, Muthulakshmi and two others had filed O.S.No.156 of 2011 with
a prayer directing that the sale deed dated 25.04.2007 bearing document
No.3860 of 2007 in favour of the defacto complainant and the sale deed
dated 27.07.2007 bearing document No.6843 of 2007 in favour of the
defacto complainant, be set aside and cancelled. The suit was contested by
the defacto complainant, Jaheer Hussain and one Dakshinamoorthy who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
were arrayed as the defendants. After a detailed trial by a Judgment and
Decree dated 14.03.2017 in O.S.No.156 of 2011, the learned Principal
District Judge, Madurai was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. Thus,
when the decree had become final, when the Court set aside the sale deed,
it will date back to the original date of execution of the sale itself and as
such, the settlement deed which is said to have been executed in the year
2008 cannot be held to be a second transaction as of today.
4.In view thereof, no useful purpose will be served by
proceeding with the said C.C.No.160 of 2011 on file and in view of the
subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Civil Court, which has
become final, the matter has to be quashed.
5.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
the case in C.C.No.160 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court No.1, Madurai shall stand quashed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
sji
Note: Issue order copy on 03.10.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Madurai
2.The Inspector of Police,
B3, Teppakulam Police Station (Crime),
Teppakulam,
Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
01.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
