In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet for alleged cheating and forgery, the High Court held that no prejudice would be caused by a trial and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.
Petition dismissed; charge sheet CC.No.110 of 2020 not quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
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(MD).No.11507 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Crl.O.P(MD).No.11507 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.5858 and 5859 of 2021
1.Pattu Jayaraman 2.Manikandan
... Petitioners / Accused 5 & 7
Vs.
2.P. Alluguswamy . 2nd Respondent / defacto complainant
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.110 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Genil For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For 2nd respondent : Mr.K.Jayakumaran
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
1/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.11507 of 2021
records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.110 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
defacto complainant in the presence of 1st petitioner's grand son and daughter, by assuring that he will arrange the job in Indian Railway and subsequently, they have cheated him by giving a bogus appointment order. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, they have threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, a case has been registered in Crime No.263 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent Police and thereafter, the same was charge sheeted in C.C.No.110 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, Madurai District for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506(i), 120(B) and 473 IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioners herein have filed the present petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case. He further
2/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.11507 of 2021
submitted that the second respondent lodged the present complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioners and the allegations made against them is a false one and further the first respondent without conducting proper investigation, filed the final report. Accordingly, he prayed to quash the impugned charge sheet.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
submitted that there is a specific allegations against the petitioners and hence, he prayed to dismiss the present petition.
6.Time and again, this Court as well as the Supreme Court has cautioned the courts about the necessary precautions to be taken while quashing the charge sheet at the initial stage. Useful reference in this
3/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.11507 of 2021
regard can be had to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of
Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426).
7.In the above circumstances, the trial court has rightly taken the case on file and this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if they are subjected to due trial as sufficient opportunity would be given to the petitioners to put forth their defence. The petitioners cannot be let by quashing the charge framed against them as that would completely undermine the alleged acts, which is the subject matter of criminal trial pending against them.
19.06.2024
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order trp
4/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.11507 of 2021
To
5/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.11507 of 2021
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Trp
Crl.O.P(MD).No.11507 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.5858 and 5859 of 2021
19.06.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the charge sheet at the initial stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the impugned charge sheet should be quashed to prevent prejudice to the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426)Referred¶34
State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pattu Jayaraman
Manikandan
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Kallikudi
P. Alluguswamy
A.A.NAKKIRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
