Dismissed

G.Rathinam, M/a 60 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Nov 2022CRL RC/192/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2018 regarding offences under Sections 408, 468, 471, 477(A) and 109 IPC, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition and directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months with liberty to raise grounds.

What did the court decide?

Closed the connected miscellaneous petition and directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months.

G.Rathinam, M/a 60 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2018

¶7

and Cr.M.P.No.1754 of 2018

¶8

G.Rathinam 2. R.Malliga

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State by Inspector of Police, CCIW/CID, Vellore, Vellore District. (Crime No.2 of 2016) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed in the discharge petition in C.M.P.No.1831 of 2017 in C.C.No.341 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore dated 07.11.2017.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the order passed in

¶15

the discharge petition in C.M.P.No.1831 of 2017 in C.C.No.341 of 2017 on the

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2018

¶19

file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore dated 07.11.2017, thereby dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioners.

¶20

The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.341 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore and facing the charges for the offences under Sections 408, 468, 471, 477(A) and 109 of IPC.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that A1, being a Secretary, A2, being the cashier of Andiapanoor primary agricultural co-operative credit society, disbursed agricultural loans to its members; in such process, they have committed willful misappropriation of the loan amount by falsification of entire bank records and also committed the offence of forgery and used the same as genuine. Those loans were sanctioned with the help of A3 in the name of members, using the forged documents. While pending the framing of charges, the petitioners filed a petition to discharge them from all the charges. However, it was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without prejudice to their right of defence before the Trial Court, a time may be fixed for completion of trial.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2018

¶26

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioners, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed with a liberty to raise all the grounds before the Trial Court during the Trial. The Trial Court is directed to complete the Trial in C.C.No.341 of 2017, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

01.11.2022

¶29

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mn

¶30

¶31

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore.

¶32

The Inspector of Police, CCIW/CID, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶33

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2018

¶37

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J

¶38

¶39

Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2018

¶40

01.11.2022

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4

G.Rathinam, M/a 60 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Rathinam, M/a 60 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

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

B.Sakthivel Vs R.Sathyakala

Nanthakumar, Aged 39 Years, Vs R.Raja, Aged 43 Years

V.Shanmugam, 48 Years, Vs N.Kala, 46 Years

R.Krishnamurthi, M/a 32 Years, Vs M.Babu M/a 57 Years

Reshma (30) Vs S.Sankaran (35)

Annappan, M/a 60 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its