Elango v. The State By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Elango Petitioner Vs State by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, (DCB-II) Nagapattinam Dt.

(Crime No. 6 of 2012) Respondent PRAYER To call for the records and set aside the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam dated 28.04.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.2848 of 2025 in C.C.No. 99 of 2014.

For Petitioner:

Mr.K.Balu For Respondent:

Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam in Crl.M.P.No.2848 of 2025 in C.C.No. 99 of 1/4

2014, the petitioner/2nd accused preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

2. Before the trial court, the petitioner had filed a petition to discharge him from the proceedings stating that there is no specific allegation against him as if he along with other accused fabricated the records and sold the property to a third party, which belongs to the defacto complainant. The said petition was dismissed by the trial court holding that belatedly he has filed the petition without any material evidence. Challenging the said findings, he preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

3. As per the complaint of defacto complainant, the fact reveals that the property was sold to a third party by the father of this petitioner by making false documents. Having came to know that, F.I.R. was lodged against five accused. Now, the case is riped for trial. The alleged false documents created in the year 2002, thereafter, the complaint was lodged in Crime No.6 of 2012, nearly about 13 years the case is pending before the court of law. As on date, the shares of the property also declined and all these years, they are standing before court, they are also not able to enjoy the property. Considering the nature of offence, if at all, any defence is available for the petitioner, he has to work out his remedy before the trial court. Therefore, this court is not inclined to set aside the findings of trial court. Since he is a Government official, his personal appearance alone is dispensed with. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case 2/4

is dismissed.

12-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rpp To Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam.

3/4

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rpp CRL RC No. 1911 of 12-11-2025 4/4