Petition to quash charge sheet alleging the petitioner submitted a fake Ph.D. certificate at appointment. The court found no grounds to quash, holding that if the certificate is genuine the petitioner may adduce evidence including summoning Patna University as a defence witness. Petition dismissed; trial directed to conclude within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.6018 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.No.6018 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.3351 & 3353 of 2022
K.K.Sheema ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Ooty Town Central Police Station, Nilgiri District. (Crime No.1000/2017)
Now transferred to
Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nilgiris District.
2.Valarmathi
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for records in C.C.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Udhagamandalam and quash the
same.
1\6
Crl.O.P.No.6018 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy
For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition to call for the records in
C.C.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,
Udhagamandalam and quash the same.
complainant who is the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint to the 1st respondent police by stating that she received an e-mail communication from the Director of College Education wherein she was directed to give police complaint against the petitioner and A1 / Anandh on the allegation that their Ph.D. Certificate which was given during their appointment was found to be false. Hence, the 1st respondent registered an FIR for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 of IPC in Crime No.1000 of 2017. Thereafter, the 1st respondent proceeded with the investigation and laid a final report for the said offences before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam which was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam
against the petitioner and A1 in CC.No.15 of 2019. Initially the 1st respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2\6
Crl.O.P.No.6018 of 2022
registered the complaint and thereafter which was transferred to the District Crime Branch and now Charge sheet was filed by the District Crime Branch, Nilgiris District.
3\6
Crl.O.P.No.6018 of 2022
the 1 st
neither witnesses spoken about the forgery nor material evidence produced by
the 1st respondent to meet out the ingredients of penal provision clamped against the petitioner. Therefore, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
4\6
Crl.O.P.No.6018 of 2022
quash the proceedings. Accordingly, this Criminal original petition is dismissed.
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
03.01.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri
To
5\6
Crl.O.P.No.6018 of 2022
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
Crl.O.P.No.6018 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3351 & 3353 of 2022
03.01.2024
6\6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet in C.C.No.15 of 2019 alleging a forged Ph.D. certificate under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC should be quashed.
Whether conflicting verification letters from Patna University justified quashing at the threshold.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
K.K. Sheema
The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Ooty Town Central Police Station, Nilgiri District (now transferred to Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nilgir
Valarmathi
T.V. Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
