Crl.R.C.No.424 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 17.04.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : 26.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

Crl.R.C.No.424 of 2023

S.Senthilkumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. K.Saravanan

2. N.Sekar

3. N.Krishnan

4. K.Subramaniam

5. P.Venugopal

6. State by Inspector,

CBCID Namakka,

Namakkal District.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. to

set aside the Order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.1, Salem in C.M.P.No.5245 of 2022 in C.C.No.540 of 2022

and allow this Revision Petition.

1 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.424 of 2023

For petitioner

: Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian

For Respondents

: Mr.K.Sukumaran – R1

Mr.S.Senthil – R2 & R3

Mr.R.Shase – R4 & R5

Mr.R.Vinothraja,

Government Advocate[Crl.Side]–R6

O R D E R

Challenging the Order of dismissal of the petition filed by the sixth

respondent in Crl.M.P.No.5245 of 2022 in C.C.No.540 of 2022 under

section 319 of Cr.P.C. to add the fifth respondent as additional accused in

C.C.No.540 of 2022, the present Criminal Revision case has been filed.

2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner is the defacto complainant

in Namakkal DCB Crime No.39 of 2012 for offences under sections 120[B],

467, 471, 420, 511 IPC and then the case has been transferred to Namakkal

CBCID and the same has been taken on file in Crime No.1 of 2015 for the

offences under sections 120B, 467, 471, 420 and 511 IPC. After

2 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.424 of 2023

investigation, final report has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Court, Namakkal, which was taken on file in C.C.No.16 of 2016 for the

offences under sections 120B, 467, 471, 420 and 511 of IPC. Thereafter,

the case has been transferred to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem and

taken on file in C.C.No.540 of 2022, where the case is now pending.

Originally, the respondent police prosecuted four accused persons namely

N.Sekar, N.Kumar, K.S.Subramaniam and P.Venugopal for having forged

an unregistered sale agreement dated 05.06.2011 as if the complainant, his

brother and his father have agreed to sell their whole property for a sum of

Rs.6 lakhs and paid an advance amount of Rs.5 lakhs on the date of sale

agreement. They had also also filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2012 for specific

performance before the Sub Court Namakkal. On receiving summon from

the Sub Court, Namakkal, the defacto complainant came to know about the

unregistered sale agreement. Hence, he has preferred the present complaint.

After investigation, the respondent prosecuted the accused persons for the

above said offence. Before the trial Court, 5 prosecution witnesses were

examined. At this stage, the prosecution has filed a petition in

3 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.424 of 2023

Crl.M.P.No.5245 of 2022 under section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead the

petitioner as the fifth accused in C.C.No.540 fo2022, which was dismissed

by the trial Court by passing the impugned Order on the ground that the

proposed accused Saravanan, S/o.Kandasamy was not cited in the First

Information Report and also not cited as an accused in the charge sheet and

the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 are not against the proposed accused

Saravanan to implicate him for the offences under sections 120B, 467, 471,

420 and 511 IPC to try along with other accused. In the impugned Order, it

is further stated that there is no evidence against the proposed accused for

conspiracy and forgery of documents and cheating the defacto complainant.

Challenging the impugned Order, the present revision case has been filed.

The prosecution has not challenged the impugned Order passed against the

respondent police.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submi