Partly allowed

S.Baskaran v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC2 Jul 2019CRL OP/11121/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a criminal petition to quash proceedings due to reliance on factual disputes. The court held that the petitioners are exempt from appearing at trial but must give an undertaking to producers examination without disputing identity and not adopt dilatory tactics.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners dispensed with, subject to undertaking of unrestricted cross-examination and non-dilatory conduct.

S.Baskaran Vs the State Rep by Its — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.07.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.11121 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.5643 of 2019

¶6

1.S.Baskaran 2.S.Jayaprakash ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Dharmapuri District (Crime No.1/AC/2015) ... Respondent/complainant

¶9

PRAYER:

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the complaint in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri and quash the same as far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sakkarapani For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused 3 and 4 seeking to call for the records relating to the complaint in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri and quash the same.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, failed to see that the occurrence was of the year is 2010-11 but the FIR was registered only in the year 2015 and that the respondents has stated that the delay in filing the F.I.R was due to the

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

pendency of preliminary enquiry which proved that the the case has been falsely implicated on the petitioners. He would further submit that in the F.I.R, the total misappropriation amount is mentioned as Rs.48,750/-, but in the charge sheet the total misappropriated amount is mentioned as Rs.8,71,965/- which shows the falsity in the case. He would further submit that LW.2 in this case one M.Ilahijan, had stated that on 23.03.2011, the first accused the sanctioned the sum to five institutions whereas in the charge sheet it has been mentioned as the sum of Rs.10,50,620/- was sanctioned to three institutions only and nothing has been stated about the remaining two institutions.

¶17

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no legal ground has been raised in the petition seeking to quash. He further submitted that all the grounds raised are factual in nature which can only be decided during the fair and factual trial. It is his further submission that the petitioners have not made any legal ground for quashing the proceedings.

¶18

4.This Court finds no ground to interfere with the proceedings based on the facts. All these can be raised before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Hence this Court was about to dismiss the application.

¶19

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would pray that the presence of the petitioners may be dispensed with before the trial Court.

¶20

6.Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsels, the presence of the petitioner is before the trial court is dispensed with.

¶21

The petitioners are further directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit that the Counsel representing them will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined in chief. The petitioners shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses. The petitioners shall appear before the Court in the event if their presence is insisted by the trial Judge for the purpose of identification. If the petitioners adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist for their appearance and deal with the petitioners in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in (2001)4 SCC 667.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Insp.Cell)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jrs
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Dharmapuri District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
+1cc to Mr.V.Sakkarapani, Advocate, S.R.No.54992
Crl.O.P.No.11121 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.5643 of 2019
RSI(CO)
CS/14/08/2019

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Baskaran v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Baskaran v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Erwadi Mohamad Kasim Vs State by

S.Sivakumar Vs State Rep.by

N.Palani Vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Rajeswari Vs Pichaipillai

Mr.K.Prem Anand, Vs the Director General of Police

Geetha Kuppan Vs State Rep.by