Dismissed

Manohar Lal @ S.M.Lal v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC26 Jun 2023CRL OP/1562/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of framed charges for cheating and forgery. It held that factual disputes require trial adjudication and lack of forged document production means a charge under Section 468 IPC will fail there, not here. Trial expedited.

What did the court decide?

Disputed the filing of the petition, closed the connected criminal miscellaneous petitions, and ordered expedited trial completion within three months.

Manohar Lal @ S.M.Lal Vs the State Rep.by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1562 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1562 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.904, 5300 & 5301 of 2021

¶7

Manohar Lal @ S.M.Lal ... Petitioner / Accused

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-2, Team-2, Vepery, Chennai. Crime No.372 of 2014

¶10

2.Rekha Agarwal ... Respondent / Complainant R2 is impleaded as per order in Crl.M.P.No.3429 of 2021 in Crl.O.P.No.1562 of 2021 dated 16.03.2021.

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.2678 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, CCB & CBCID, Allikulam, Chennai and to quash the order of framing of charges dated 04.01.2020.

¶12

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

¶13

1/6

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.1562 of 2021

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. G. R. Hari For R1 : Mr. A. Damodaran, Additiona1 Public Prosecutor. For R2 : Mr. S. Senthilnathan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is to quash the order of charges framed by the trial Court in C.C.No.2678 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 120-B and 506(i) IPC.

¶18

2.It is alleged in the final report that the petitioner along with his brother and his brother's wife had made false representation and received money and thereafter did not make the payment and thus guilty of offence under Section 420 IPC along with the other offences.

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial

¶20

Court had not considered the materials in the proper perspective and had

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.1562 of 2021

¶24

framed charges even though there were no materials to frame the charges for the offence alleged. There is nothing in the charges to suggest, as to how the petitioner had committed any forgery of any document. Even with regard to the offence under Section 420 IPC, the only allegation is that he was present along with the 1^st accused (since deceased), while the payment was made by the defacto complainant to the 1^st accused. There is no material in the impugned final report to show that the petitioner had received any money from the 1^st accused.

¶25

4.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Additiona1 Public Prosecutor would submit that the points raised by the petitioner has to be adjudicated only before the trial Court. Even if there is an error in framing of charges, the issue can be addressed during the course of trial and merely because, the charges have been erroneously framed, it cannot be said that the petitioner is prejudiced. Further, it is for the prosecution to establish only during the course of trial that the offence of any forgery and cheating have been committed by the petitioner. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.

¶26

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

¶27

3/6

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.1562 of 2021

¶29

5.This Court finds that it is the case of the petitioner that though there is no averment in the impugned final report to show, as to the nature of document forged by the petitioner, the petitioner is unnecessarily charged for the alleged offence of forgery. This Court is of the view that if the prosecution had failed to produce the alleged forged document, then the charge under Section 468 IPC has to fail. However, it is for the prosecution to establish the said offence before the trial Court. As regards the offence under Sections 420 IPC and 406 IPC, it is the case of the defacto complainant that the money was transferred to the petitioner from the account of A1. Since there is a factual controversy, the same cannot be entertained in a quash petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the trial Court and it is needless to say that the trial Court shall consider the same on its merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

¶30

6.Since the petitioner is aged about 73 years, his appearance before the trial Court is dispensed with, unless the learned Magistrate considers his presence necessary for the progress of the trial.

¶31

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

¶32

4/6

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.1562 of 2021

¶34

7.Since the case is of the year 2018, the learned Magistrate may expedite the trial process and preferably complete it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

8.With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶36

26.06.2023

¶37

smv

¶38

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

¶39

To,

¶40

1.The Deputy Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Having office at Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶41

2.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic offence, Egmore, Chennai.

¶42

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶43

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

¶44

5/6

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.1562 of 2021

¶46

SUNDER MOHAN,J. smv

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.1562 of 2021

¶48

26.06.2023

¶49

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

¶50

6/6

Manohar Lal @ S.M.Lal v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Lal @ S.M.Lal v. the State Rep.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

Kevin Ganthi Vs State Rep.by Its

Rm.Muthu Annamalai Vs the State Rep.by Its

Skp Finance Vs State Rep.by Its

Jitendrs Agarwal Vs Arunkumar Somani

Mahesh Prasad Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

P.Krishnamurthy @ P.Kutty Vs the Inspector of Police