Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12172/2017dismissed

Elango v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-09-15Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.09.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12172 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.8425 and 8426 of 2017 1.Elango 2.Madhina Mahariba ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 -Vs1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai.

(Crime No.17 of 2009) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. The Block Development Officer, East Panchayat, Madurai East, Madurai District. .. 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and to quash C.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai in Crime No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai.

For Petitioners :

Mr.R.Surianarayanan For Respondents :

Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side).

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed to call for the records and to quash C.C.No.41 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai in Crime No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the respondents.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/ defacto complainant, a criminal case was registered as against the petitioners/A2, A3 and the Panchayat Assistant in Crime No.17 of 2009 for offences under Sections 120(b), 409, 405, 468, 471, 420 of IPC.

4.The defacto complainant in this case is none other than the Block Development Officer, Madurai East Panchayat. The complaint is about the financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds, which was to be paid to several persons under the scheme of Central Government. It is true that the petitioners / A2 and A3 were implicated only on the basis that they were also suspected for joining hand in glow with the first accused, who has admittedly forged the order of the Block Development Officer. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner is the President and the second petitioner is the Vice President of the village and that the occurrence was during the time when they were holding the position as Executive Authorities having check signing power. It is the duty and responsibility of the petitioners to prevent such misappropriation.

Prima facie the involvement of the petitioners cannot be ruled out unless there are strong circumstances and evidence in the favour of petitioners in these kind of cases. In view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. It is open to the petitioners to establish their case in defence at the time of trial.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai.

2. The Block Development Officer, East Panchayat,Madurai East, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

MRN/PJL MAS/JC/SAR1:11.10.2017:2P-4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12172 of 2017 15.09.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/