Madras High CourtCRL RC/1012/2017disposed of

V.Jaganathan, Aged 68 Yrs v. T.Ramesh Kumar

2020-02-27Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.02.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Crl.R.C.No.1012 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.9549 of 2017 V.Jaganathan S/o.Ramasamy Gounder 23/1, New State Bank Colony Water Works Road Thirunagar Colony Erode-638 003.

... Petitioner Vs.

T.Rameshkumar S/o.Karuppannan Staff No.C40619 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Erode Region, Chennimalai Road Kasipalayam P.O., Erode-9.

... Respondent (Cause title amended as per the order of this Court dated 19.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.

11945 of 2017 in Crl.R.C.No.1012/2019).

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 17.06.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.7892 of 2013 in C.C.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent : Mr.C.Prabakaran

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the Court below rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 216 of Cr.PC to alter the charge to Section 420 of IPC in respect of the act of the respondent / accused.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reasons adduced by the Trial Court for dismissal of the application of the petitioner are not in consonance with law and facts and that the findings of the Trial Court are far-fetched when it is considered within the legal framework. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.This Court has also heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.This Court has perused the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has made an observation that only if new grounds arise as per Section 216 of Cr.PC upon investigation, charges can be altered.

5.Even though this Court is not interfering with the impugned order, it is made clear that if any claims are agitated on the basis of the material evidence, it is always open to the Magistrate to look into the issues and also invoke the relevant provisions including Section 420 of IPC. With this observation, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate II, Erode.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

Copy to

3. The SO, Criminal Section High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.17665 +1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate, S.R.No.17582 GMR(CO) Maya(29/05/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/