Dismissed

R.Malliga, F/55 Years v. Karthikeyan, M/A-30 Yrs

Madras HC12 Nov 2021CRL OP/19414/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash a private complaint for cheating and forgery. The petition was rejected as an abuse of process because the petitioners failed to deny the respondent's allegations that the trial had concluded and they had suppressed relevant facts.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition No.19414 of 2017 and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed and closed.

R.Malliga, F/55 Years Vs Karthikeyan, M/A-30 Yrs — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 12.11.2021

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. No.19414 of 2017

¶6

and Crl. M.P.No.11744, 11745 & 13782 of 2017

¶7

1.R.Malliga

¶8

2.R.Ramakrishnan ...Petitioners/Accused 5&6

¶9

Versus

¶10

Karthikeyan ...Respondent/Complainant

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.438 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner ... Mr.S.N.Arunkumar

¶13

For Respondent ... Mr.R.Jayaprakash

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition has been filed by A5 and A6 to quash the private complaint filed for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 of IPC.

¶16

The crux of the allegation is that though the property owned by Elumalai was sold in the year 1988, his sons A1 to A3 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A4 subsequently and pursuant to the same, A4 sold the property in favour of A5 in the year 1999 and thereafter, A5 sold the same to third parties at the instigation of A6. Thereafter, it came to light that the title has been divested in the year 1988 itself by original owner Elumalai. As the parties committed cheating and fabricated documents, a private complaint appears to have been filed.

¶17

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence.

¶18

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

¶19

As the parties committed cheating and fabricated documents, the private complaint appears to have been filed. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that quash petition has been filed to quash the private complaint, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant that in this matter trial concluded on 28.09.2018 and the matter has been posted for arguments on 26.11.2021.

¶20

These facts have been suppressed by the petitioners. When this Court posed the question to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, he is not able to deny the contention of the respondent's counsel.

¶21

In such view of non-denial, this Court will infer that the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent is correct and this Court is of the view that the present petition to quash the private complaint is nothing but a abuse of process of law. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

gpa/gba

¶28

To 1. The Judicial Magistrate Ambattur.

¶29

-do through- The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur.

¶30

The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai – 104

¶31

+1cc to Mr.S.N.Arunkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.58229

¶32

+1cc to Mr.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate, S.R.No.58348

¶33

Crl. O.P. No.19414of 2017 and Crl. M.P.No.11744 of 2017

¶34

EV[co]

¶35

NSK 25/11/2021

¶36

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

R.Malliga, F/55 Years v. Karthikeyan, M/A-30 Yrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Malliga, F/55 Years v. Karthikeyan, M/A-30 Yrs

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

Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Thangavel, Aged 47 Years Vs State Rep. by

Kannan, M/a 27 Years, Vs Ravichandran, M/a 25 Years

M.Udhaya @ Udhayakumar Vs the State Rep.by

R.Ashok Kumar, M/a 59 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

R.Lakshmi, F/A-60 Years Vs State by