Madras High CourtCRL RC/705/2010dismissed

E.Arumugam v. P.Soundaravadivel @ P.S.Vel

2016-01-20Honourable Mr Justice C. T. Selvam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 20.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2010 E.Arumugam S/o.Ekambara Mudaliyar .. Petitioner vs.

1.P.Soundaravadivel 2.The State by Inspector of police Erode South Police Station Erode District Crime No.97 of 2007 .. Respondents Criminal Revision filed under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the order dated 05.04.2010 made in C.R.P.No.43 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court I, Erode reversing the order taking cognizance and framing the charges against the 2nd accused in C.C.No.339 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Erode.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent :

Mrs.M.F.Shabana No.2 Government Advocate [Crl.side]

O R D E R

This revision challenges the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Erode dated 05.04.2010 made in C.R.P.No.43 of 2009.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).

3. The respondent challenged the charges framed against him in C.C.No.339 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate III, Erode for offences under Sections 120(B) and 420 IPC by way of revision in C.R.P.No.43 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Erode. In allowing the revision, the Court below has reasoned that the first accused/agent had sold the entire property while Power of Attorney had been executed in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respect of their 2/3 rd share, both by first respondent/A2 and the complainant. The Court below has found that in executing the Power of Attorney in favour of A1, no wrong had been committed by the respondent since he was well within his right in executing a power of attorney in respect of property, which was his. It was also found that there was nothing to inform that he had wrongly induced the complainant to do any act. This Court finds no error in the order under challenge.

The criminal revision is dismissed.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar gpa To

1. The Additional District Sessions Judge Fast Track Court I, Erode

2. The Judicial Magistrate III, Erode

3. do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate Erode

4. The Inspector of police Erode South Police Station Erode District 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

1 cc to Mr.N. Manokaran, Advocate, Sr. 3227 Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2010 RSY (CO) kk 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/