Point of Law: Congnizance of offence – Remand – When not necessary - after completing investigation the respondent police has filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance and its pending for trial. At this stage remand of accused person is not necessary.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 18.11.2016 made in Crl.RP No.29 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, which set aside the order of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai dated 02.06.2016 by rejected the request for remand made by the respondent.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the order dated 18.11.2016 in Crl.RP No.29 of 2016 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, which set aside the order of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai dated 02.06.2016 in which the Special Court rejected the request for remand made by the respondent.

2. As against the order, dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai, the respondent police has preferred an appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.RP No.29 of 2016 the same was allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision case.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein are arrayed as Accused Nos.4 & 5 in Crime No. 85 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 470, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. While so, the respondent Nos.4 & 5 were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate (FAC) Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai on 02.06.2016 for remanding the accused persons for custody. But, the learned Magistrate has refused to remand the accused persons by way of the impugned order.

4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Court has failed to note that the case of the defacto complainant is that the accused No.1 to 3 fraudulently created the gift deed, dated 04.12.2009, in which the petitioner and other accused witnesses to the same, it is not the case of the defacto complainant that the accused Nos.4 & 5 created the gift deed dated 04.12.2009, similarly the accused Nos.1 to 3 also not spoken about the involvement of accused Nos.4 & 5. Without having any prima facie material, the respondent police tried to secure the petitioner, though he has appeared pursuant to their summons. He further submitted that though the learned Magistrate has observed that civil dispute is pending between the parties, the learned Sessions Court did not have any findings to that effect. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Court has failed to note that all the allegations are related to the forged document, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all necessary. Hence, he prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent police submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the complicity of the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent. She further submitted that the prima facie material submitted by the petitioner has also not been considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate and hence, the impugned order refusing to remand the accused Nos.4 & 5 is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Hence, therefore, she prays for dismissal.

6. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that the alleged gift deed, dated 04.12.2009 sent for forensic examination on 05.05.2016 by the 1st respondent police to find out the genuineness of the signature of his parents and on 30.06.2016 the report has been sent to the concerned Court as if the executor's signatures are not tallied with the disputed gift deed, dated 04.12.2009. It is clearly shows that the alleged gift deed is forged one and the revision petitioner and the accused No.4 were put their signatures as if the said gift deed was executed before them f