Dismissed

V.Manoharan v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC21 Nov 2023CRL OP/26375/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash trial proceedings regarding alleged cheating of the Government by inflated bills. Petitioner sought withdrawal and exemption from personal appearance. Court allowed withdrawal subject to conditions regarding representation and appearance at critical trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner directed to appear at critical trial stages and be represented by counsel.

V.Manoharan Vs the State Rep.by — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.26375 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.26375 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.18329 of 2023

¶7

V.Manoharan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State represented by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Mayiladuthurai.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records in Spl.C.C.No.04 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthuai and quash the same

¶12

in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.26375 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the

¶19

records in Spl.C.C.No.04 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial

¶20

Magistrate, Mayiladuthuai and quash the same in respect of the petitioner.

¶21

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner (A5), who is a

¶22

Contractor, along with the accused 1 to 4, who were Junior Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers respectively in PWD/WRO, Cauvery Basin SubDivision (East), Mayiladuthurai, without doing the actual work, have inflated the bills and cheated the Government.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner other than being the contractor has not committed any offence. He further submitted that only after the approval of the accused 1 to 4, the bills have been passed, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible.

¶24

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that it is the case where the petitioner had conspired with other accused and by

¶25

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

¶26

2/6

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.26375 of 2023

¶28

fabricating the invoices and by raising inflated bills, had cheated the Government to the tune of Rs.57,71,904/-. He also submitted that there are ample materials to show the collusion between the petitioner and other accused. He further submitted that the trial has been commenced and the case stands posted on 07.12.2023.

¶29

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the petition and also prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 71 years and thereby, he prayed that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, may be dispensed with.

¶30

Accepting the said submission, the presence of the petitioner

¶31

before the trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that he shall be present before the trial Court on initial questioning, reply to charges and at the time of framing charges and questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing judgment and whenever insisted upon by the trial court.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.26375 of 2023

¶35

The petitioner is further directed to give an undertaking in the form

¶36

of affidavit that he will be duly represented by a counsel on all hearing dates and that the Counsel representing him will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the same day they are examined in chief. The petitioner shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses. The petitioner shall appear before the Court in the event his presence is insisted by the trial Judge for the purpose of identification or progress in trial. If the petitioner adopts any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the trial Court to insist for his appearance and deal with the petitioner in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh , reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.

¶37

8 . In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing

¶38

for the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn

¶39

with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

21.11.2023

¶41

Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No ham

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.26375 of 2023

¶45

¶46

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Mayiladuthurai.

¶47

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶48

5/6

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.26375 of 2023

¶51

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶52

ham

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.26375 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.18329 of 2023

¶54

21.11.2023

¶55

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

¶56

6/6

V.Manoharan v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Manoharan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemal Arun Mehta Vs the Directorate of Enforcement

Selvamani Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Inspector of Police

R.S.Ramani @ Rama Subramani Ramani, Vs State by

R.Ekambaram Vs the Inspector of Police

Uma Maheswari Vs State Rep by

Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs a.Sardar