Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/215/2020dismissed

Rani v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-02-23Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan2 pages

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.215 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C(MD)No.215 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.1957 of 2020 Rani ... Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Accused No.2 Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Palamedu Police Station, Palamedu, Madurai District.

(Crime No.167 of 2012) ... Respondent/ Respondent/ Complainant Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.1555 of 2017 in C.C No.55 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti and set aside the same and consequently, discharge the petitioner/Accused in C.C No.55 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Manoharan For Respondent : Mrs.Aasha Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1555 of 2017 in C.C No.55 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti and consequently, discharge the petitioner / Accused No.1 in C.C No.55 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.

2. There are totally four accused in which, the petitioner is arrayed as second accused. The respondent registered the case on the complaint lodged by Solaiammal in Crime No.167 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 468, 471, 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.215 of 2020 IPC. The allegations are that the defacto complainant's husband has enjoyed the property comprised in Survey No.785/2 and 785/3 with an extent of 5 acres 20 cents situated at Muduvarpatti, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. The said land was assigned to her husband through the proceedings of Tahsildar, Vadipatti in D.K.T.No.1212/79 and he got patta in his name. However, the first accused fabricated the document as if the defacto complainant's husband, namely, Karuppanan instead of Karuppan, had executed the power of attorney in favour of him on 31.10.1992. Thereafter, the first accused had executed a sale deed in favour of the third accused. The second and fourth accused assisted for fabrication of the documents of power of attorney and sale deed.

3. In view of the above, it is made clear that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner. The Court below rightly dismissed the petition for discharge from the charge under Sections 120(b), 468, 471, 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) mga To:

1. The Inspector of Police, Palamedu Police Station, Palamedu, Madurai District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.215 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.1957 of 2020 23.02.2022 MGJ(18.03.2022) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2