T.MATHIVANAN
D. Prabhakar – Appellant
Versus
Durai Kannu Naicker – Respondent
1. Invoking the proviso under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.640 of 2005 which is pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
2. The background facts warranted to file this petition are detailed as under.
3. The petitioners are accused No.3 & 4 in the case in C.C.No.640 of 2005 which is pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. The respondent herein has filed this complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. against four persons which includes the petitioners herein, to deal with them under Sections 406, 417, 420, 465, 471 and 120(B) of IPC. The accused 1 and 2 have been declared as proclaimed offenders by an order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur dated 28.05.2009. Thereafter the case against them has been split up and numbered as C.C.No.550 of 2010 which is also pending before the said Court.
4. The respondent has alleged in his complaint that he is the owner of a piece of land comprised in Survey No.565/1 and 674/1 measuring 10 cents at Sholinganalur Village. He was badly in need of money to met out the marriage expenses of his daughter. He was info
4. K.Ashoka vs. N.L.Chandrashekar and Others 2009 5 SCC 199.
7. In K.Ashokas case (2009 5 SCC 199).
8. (2006) 6 SCC 736: (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188.
3. R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866.
2. Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 1754.
6. Ravi Modi vs. Sanjay Jain and Others 2009 13 SCC 241.
9. State of H.P. vs. Pirthi Chand 1996 2 SCC 37: 1996 SCC (Cri) 210.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.