The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of a discharge petition. The Court found no error in the lower court's holding that the case required a full trial based on prima facie material regarding alleged forgery.
The criminal revision petition and the connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.09.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2009
.. Petitioners(Accused)
vs.
State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Inspector of Police Pollachi Taluk Police Station, Pollachi.
Crime No.44 of 2006.
.. Respondent(Complainant)
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Order dated 13.11.2008 made in Crl.M.P.No.1605 of 2008 in C.C.No.358 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Pollachi.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
O R D E R
The revision is preferred against the Order dated 13.11.2008 made in Crl.M.P.No.1605 of 2008 in C.C.No.358 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Pollachi, filed by the petitioners for discharge.
points out that the Section 161(3) statements of the defacto complainant's son and daughters inform the forgery of documents and use thereof in support of civil proceedings.
This Court finds no error in the order passed by the Court below. Hence, the revision is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
usk
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate II,
Pollachi.
2.The Inspector of Police
Pollachi Taluk Police Station,
Pollachi.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
1 cc to Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan ,Advocate, SR.No.42345
Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2009
pa(co)
pmk.15.12.2014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court's rejection of the discharge petition was erroneous given the prima facie material supporting the case of forgery.
Whether the discharge petition could be entertained despite the reliance on Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements and forensic reports.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Annamalai
N.Alagirisamy
State of Tamil Nadu
C.T.Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
