The Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for forgery and cheating, holding that civil disputes with criminal colour do not warrant quashing at the charge sheet stage and the accused must be subjected to due trial.
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.16507 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.16507 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.8896 and 8897 of 2021
1.S.Kannan 2.S.Sivaraman ... Petitioners / Accused 1 &2
Vs.
1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.596 of 2020) .. 1st respondent / complainant 2.S.Baskaran . 2nd Respondent / defacto complainant
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.77 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Manamadurai, Sivagangai District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.P. Ranjithkumar For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For 2nd respondent : Mr.K. Muralidharan
1/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.16507 of 2021
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.77 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Munsif – CumJudicial Magistrate Court at Manamadurai, Sivagangai District and quash the same.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons forged the documents with regard to the land property and sold the same and thereby, cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint, based on which, a case in Crime No.596 of 2020 registered for the offences under Sections 466, 471 and 420 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the first respondent filed the final report, which was taken on file in C.C.No.77 of 2021 by the Additional Munsif - Cum - Judicial Magistrate Court at Manamadurai. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.
2/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.16507 of 2021
lodged the present complaint by giving criminal colour to the civil dispute and the first respondent without conducting proper investigation, filed the final report. Accordingly, he prayed to quash the impugned charge sheet.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the petitioners herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the charges against the petitioners have to be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the 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.16507 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.16507 of 2021
To
5/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.16507 of 2021
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Trp
Crl.O.P(MD).No.16507 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.8896 and 8897 of 2021
19.06.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process of court warranting quashing at the preliminary stage?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan LalReferred¶30
1992 SCC (Crl.) 426 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Kannan
S.Sivaraman
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District
S.Baskaran
A.A.NAKKIRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
