Allowed

N.Venkatesan, Age 48, v. the Deputy Registrar (Writs)

Madras HC22 Oct 2021CRL OP/27881/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a private complaint. The court held that since the foundational order finding fabrication of documents had been set aside in a review, the criminal complaint had no basis to survive.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; Connected miscellaneous petitions closed; Private complaint C.C.No.3712 of 2014 quashed.

N.Venkatesan, Age 48, Vs the Deputy Registrar (Writs) — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO. 27881 OF 2017

¶6

& CRL.M.P.NOS.15870 & 15871 OF 2017

¶7

N.Venkatesan ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Deputy Registrar (Writs),
High Court of Madras,
Madras. ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records
pertaining in C.C.No.3712 of 2014 dated 10.11.2017 on the file
of VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai and
quash the same.

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the
private complaint filed by the respondent before the VII
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai.

¶12

2.The complaint in C.C.No.3712 of 2014 was filed on the
strength of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21133 of
2014 on 24.09.2014, wherein, in paragraph no.7, this Court has
observed as follows;

¶13

"7.....As the petitioner has committed fraud on the
file of fabricated documents and interfere with the
Administration of Justice, I direct the Registrar
General to initiate appropriate proceedings as per
the criminal procedure against the petitoiner for

¶14

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

¶15

intering with the Administration of Justice by
producing fabricated document."

¶16

3.When the matter is taken for hearing, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that he has filed Rev.Appln.No.315
of 2014 in W.P.No.21133 of 2014, wherein this Court has passed
an order on 21.12.2018 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted
hereunder;

¶17

"7.Considering all those materials, this Court is of
the view that the learned Judge has only gone through
the copy of the application filed in the typed set of
papers, and at the time of disposing the Writ
Petition, the original records were not produced
before the learned Judge. Now, the records were
produced, and on perusal of the records, it could be
seen that the application seeking compassionate
appointment was made only on 16.08.2000 as claimed by
the petitioner.

¶18

8.In the above circumstances, the order has been
passed in the Writ Petition without considering the
relevant records, and it is an error apparent on the
face of the records. Hence, the order is liable to be
reviewed. As the petitioner has filed the application
on 16.08.2000 as claimed by him, there is no question
of any forgery or tampering of the records.
Considering all those materials, I find that there is
no tampering of records as held by the court dated
24.09.2014 in the Writ Petition. The petitioner has
not committed any fraud and fabricated the documents,
thereby interfering with the administration of
justice of this Court.

¶19

9.In the said circumstances, the present Review
Application is partly allowed setting aside the order
in respect of para 7 of the order passed by the
learned Judge dated 24.09.2014 in the Writ Petition,
and in respect of other findings of the learned Judge
stands as such.

¶20

4.A perusal of the above order clearly shows that paragraph
no.7 of the order passed in W.P.No.21133 of 2014 on 24.09.2014
was set aside. In paragraph no.7 of the said order, this Court
has specifically observed that the petitioner has committed
fraud by filing fabricated documents and thereby interfered with

¶21

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

¶22

the Administration of Justice and therefore, it directed the
Registral General to initiate appropriate proceedings as per the
criminal procedure code against the petitioner. That was the
route cause for filing C.C.No.3712 od 2014 before the VII
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai . However,
this Court has held in Rev.Appln.No.315 of 2014 in W.P.No.21133
of 2014 that the order dated 24.09.2014 has been passed without
considering the relevant records and it is an error apparrent on
the face of the records and therefore, set aside paragraph no.7
of the order dated 24.09.2014 in W.P.No.21133 of 2014. It
further held that the petitioner has not committed any fraud and
fabricated the documents, thereby interfering with the
administration of justice of this Court.

¶23

5.Hence, this Court is of the view that nothing survives in
the complaint preferred by the respondent in C.C.No.3712 of
2014. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash C.C.No.3712 of 2014
pending before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George
Town, Chennai and accordingly quashed.

¶24

6.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is
allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.

¶25

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

Tsg

¶29

To

¶30

1.The VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
 George Twon, Chennai.

¶31

2.The Deputy Registrar (Writs), High Court of Madras, Madras.

¶32

+1cc to M/s.C.S.Associates, Advocate SR.No.54721

¶33

Crl.O.P.No. 27881 of 2017
& CRL.M.P.Nos.15870 & 15871 of 2017

¶34

PCH(CO)
RVM(10/11/2021)

¶35

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

N.Venkatesan, Age 48, v. the Deputy Registrar (Writs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Venkatesan, Age 48, v. the Deputy Registrar (Writs)

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

District Forest Officer Vs Mr.Kanappan

District Forest Officer Vs Mr.Kannan

State of Tamilnadu Vs Kumar

Arulmurugan Vs Tmt.Arulmani

Dr.Karthik, Aged 28 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Adhimoolam, Aged 42 Years, Vs the State Rep. by