Crl.A.Nos.446, 447 &448 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.A.Nos.446, 447 & 448 of 2015

...Appellant in all Crl.A.Nos.

Akkiniraj

Vs.

1.Thirumoorthy Chettiar

2.Mageshwari

3.Shenbagavalli

4.Bala Kumar

5.Visalakshi

... Respondents in all Crl.A.Nos.

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals had been filed under Section 341

of Cr.P.C, to set aside the judgment passed in Cr.M.P.Nos.564, 565 & 566

of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, dated

05.03.2013.

For Appellant in

all Crl.A.Nos.

: No appearance

For Respondents

in all Crl.A.Nos.

: Mr.Venkatesan for R2, R3 & R4

Legal Aide Counsel

R1 & R5 – service awaited

1/6

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

Crl.A.Nos.446, 447 &448 of 2015

COMMON ORDER

All these three appeals arise out of the connected matters

between the same parties and as such, they are taken up for disposal by this

common order. When the appeals came up for hearing before this Court on

13.12.2022, Mr.R.Gokulakrishnan, the learned counsel on behalf of the

appellants, undertook to file vakalat/memo appearance and at his request,

fresh notice was also ordered. Thereafter, when the matter came up for

hearing on 19.01.2023, there was no representation for the appellants and

today also when the matter came up for hearing there is no representation.

As such, this Court proceeded to consider the materials on record and

decide the appeals on merits.

2. The factual background leading to the filing of these appeals

as hereunder. Totally three suits, for recovery of money arising out of

promissory notes, were filed against one Ramathal. The said Ramathal died

pending suits and her legal heirs, which includes the present appellant

herein, were brought on record as defendants in the said suits.

2/6

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

Crl.A.Nos.446, 447 &448 of 2015

3. It is the contention of the defendants in the suits that the

signature of the said Ramathal itself was forged in the promissory note.

While so, three Transfer Original Petitions were filed before the District

Judge, Tiruppur, in CMP.Nos.564, 565 & 566 of 2012. When summons

were served on the legal heirs including the appellants, they engaged one

Advocate by name Mr.Udhayakumar to file vakalat. However, to their

shock and surprise, the counsel informed that already one Advocate by

name Mr.N.V.Giri, had entered appearance. The appellant and the other four

persons did not sign such vakalat and the vakalat is a forged one. Therefore,

three applications were filed under Section 340 of the Code of Civil

Procedure to forward the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate in

respect of the offence of forgery committed by the concerned parties as well

as the Advocates.

4. The trial Court, took up the applications conducted

preliminary enquiry in the matter. In the preliminary enquiry one

Mr.Senthil Kumar, the advocate who was appearing for the appellant and

3/6

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

Crl.A.Nos.446, 447 &448 of 2015

the other defendants in the suits deposed that he appeared for them in the

suits. The Transfer Original Petitions were filed in Tiruppur. Since he did

not attend Tiruppur Court he suggested the parties to engage one

Mr.N.V.Giri, as counsel, who is known to him. Therefore, the appellant and

the other five persons signed the vakalat before one Advocate

Mr.Mahadevan and the vakalat was sent to Mr.N.V.Giri who then filed the

vakalat. The Advocate Clerk of the said counsel also deposed about the said

vakalat. Since the preliminary enquiry revealed that the complaint was

incorrect, the learned Principal, District Judge, Tiruppur, by an order dated

05.03.2013 dismissed all the three applications. Aggrieved by the same, the

present appeals are laid before this Court.

5. A perusal of the grounds of appeals,