IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
R. Dharmalingam & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, CBCID (South) Coimbatore & Others - Respondent
Crl.O.P. Nos. 18104, 21854 of 2021 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 11870 & 11871 of 2021
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Speedy Trial - Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - C.C.No.21480 of 2019 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a complaint regarding the creation of a forged document and subsequent legal proceedings. The accused filed a civil suit using the forged document, leading to a series of legal actions and petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's failure to hear the accused in a protest petition was a violation of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The court quashed the docket order and directed the trial court to hear the submissions of the accused and the defacto complainant and pass orders on merits within 15 days. The trial court was also directed to proceed with the trial and complete it within six months.
Issues: The primary issue was the failure of the trial court to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court to hear the accused in a protest petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the violation of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which directed the trial court to hear the accused in the protest petition and take a decision on the point of issuing process or not.
Final Decision: Crl.O.P.No.21854 of 2021 was allowed, quashing the docket order and directing the trial court to hear the accused and the defacto complainant and pass orders on merits within 15 days. Crl.O.P.No.18104 of 2021 was disposed of, with the trial court directed to proceed with the trial and complete it within six months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.18104 of 2021: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore to commence the speedy trial proceedings in C.C.No.21480 of 2019, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.
Crl.O.P.No.21854 of 2021: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to docket order dated 06.09.2021 in CC.No.21480/2019 and quash the same and direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore to hear the protest petition after giving opportunity to the petitioners 1 to 4 herein.)
Common Order
1. Crl.O.P.No.18104 of 2021 has been filed to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore (trial Court) to commence the speedy trial proceedings in C.C.No.21480 of 2019.
2. Crl.O.P.No.21854 of 2021 has been filed to quash the docket order, dated 06.09.2021 in C.C.No.21480 of 2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore (trial Court) and direct the trial Court to hear the protest petition after giving opportunity to the petitioners 1 to 4.
3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21854 of 2021 and respondents 2 to 5 in Crl.O.P.No.18104 of 2021 are referred as accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18104 of 2021 and for the 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.No.21854 of 2021 is referred as defacto complainant.
4. The issues for filing the above petitions are that one Ganeshamoorthy, brother of the defacto complainant in C.C.No.21480 of 2019 lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore against the accused with regard to creation of forged document, dated 15.03.2006. Using the forged document, N.J.Subramaniam, one of the accused in C.C.No.21480 of 2019, had filed civil suit in O.S.No.438 of 2009 before the learned First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. Initially, on the complaint of Ganeshamoorthy, C.S.R.No.555 of 2014 was assigned, but no case was registered. Thereafter, the defacto complainant moved this Court and filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.9938 of 2015 and obtained a direction from this Court. After enquiry, the complaint of the defacto complainant was closed as ‘Mistake of Fact’ and notice was served to the defacto complainant on 05.08.2016, aggrieved against the same, the defacto complainant filed Crl.O.P.No.15024 of 2015 before this Court to direct the Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore to conduct proper enquiry and register a case on the basis of the complaint. This Court, by order, dated 05.10.2015, had set aside the closure report, dated 10.08.2015 and directed the Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore to conduct fresh enquiry on all aspects and take action in accordance with law. Despite the same, no action was taken by the Police and hence, the defacto complainant filed a Contempt Petition in C.P.No.2768 of 2015 before this Court, in which this Court, by order, dated 22.03.2016 issued direction to secure the forged sale agreement and cause enquiry into the matter. Thereafter, a case in Crime No.306 of 2016 was registered, for offence, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC. After investigation, it was reported by the Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore that ‘Further Action Dropped’ against the accused. Hence, the defacto complainant filed Crl.O.P.No.15756 of 2016 before this Court seeking transfer of investigation in Crime No.306 of 2016. This Court, by order, dated 10.08.2016 set aside the closure report in Crime No.306 of 2016 and transferred the case to the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB, Coimbatore for reinvestigation. Despite the same, no action action was taken by the Inspector of Police, CCB, Coimbatore. Subsequently, Crl.O.P.No.23712 of 2016 was filed by the defacto complainant seeking change of investigation from the file of Inspector of Police, CCB, Coimb
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the orders of higher courts and ensuring the right to be heard for the accused in legal proceedings.
The need for prima facie evidence to proceed against the accused and the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Court must determine the genuineness of AGM minutes amid allegations of perjury while considering the implications of a Supreme Court stay order on parallel inquiries.
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement o....
The main legal point established is that a complaint filed with ulterior motives, unexplained delay, and unsupported allegations of forgery can be quashed by the court.
A magistrate must apply mind and provide reasoning when taking cognizance of complaints; failure to do so allows for quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
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.