Dismissed

V.Sivarasu, v. State Represented by

Madras HC17 Dec 2021CRL OP/10239/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings for forgery and cheating. Supreme Court held the trial court must appreciate evidence on these charges and cannot do so at this stage, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed with direction to Trial Court to dispose main case expeditiously; personal appearance dispensed with for trial stages.

V.Sivarasu, Vs State Represented by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. No.10239 of 2017 and CRL.M.P.Nos.6763 &6764 of 2017

V.Sivarasu

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.State rep.by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District (Crime No.6 of 2013)

¶10

2.C.Krishnan ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and quash the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur as against the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Saikrishnan for M/s.Sai

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.side) for R1 No appearance for R2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 468 , 471 and 420 of IPC @ 120(b), 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.

¶16

The petitioner has been arrayed as A8 in C.C.No.210 of 2016. The crux of the prosecution case is that the property has been transferred in the name of defacto complainant by his wife. It has been transferred clandestinely by impersonating the defacto complainant in the name of A1. Thereafter, again the same was transferred to A2. Hence, A1 and A2 along with other accused were conspired together and impersonated the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defacto complainant. Thereby, they committed the aforesaid

¶17

offence and final report has been filed against them for the offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that A8 is merely a document writer and he is no way connected with the alleged impersonation of the earlier document registered in favour of A1, whereas, he has registered the subsequent documents. Therefore, he cannot be fastened with the criminal liability.

¶19

At the outset, I am of the view that when the materials unearthed by the prosecution indicate creating the forged documents and conspiracy charge is also stare against the present petitioner, only the Trial Court has to appreciate the evidence. This Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a roving enquiry or decide or probe into the evidence at this stage, which have to be gone into only during the trial. Such being the position, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to grant an order dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., passing of judgment, or on any other date as may be required by the trial Court.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

msv/nr

¶26

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur.

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,

¶29

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

¶30

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶31

4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras-104.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.T.Saikrishnan, Advocate SR. No.68378

¶33

Crl. O.P. No.10239 of 2017 and CRL.M.P.Nos.6763 &6764 of 2017

¶34

SSV (CO) PR (19/01/2022)

¶35

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

V.Sivarasu, v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sivarasu, v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rudra Bahadur Chhetry, Vs the State Represented by

M. Elaya Perumal 34 Yrs Vs M. Sathyavani

Mahendra Shanmuganathan Vs Sree Srinivasa Constructions

Tamil @ Tamizharasan Vs the State Rep. by

Thiruvengadam, Aged 67 Years Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Ramachandran, M/71 Years Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cum