Sengamalai v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14546 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.9406 of 2022 Sengamalai ... Petitioner/A2 Vs.

1.State through The Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing, Tiruchirappalli.

Crime No.9 of 2017 ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, College Road, Vadugappatti Village, Musiri @ Po. Tiruchirappalli District In FR 7-2019.

... 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash all the further proceedings of the case in C.C.No.73 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

For petitioner : Mr.S.Karthikeyan For R-1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R-2 : No Appearance 1/6

O RDER This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.75 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the President of Tiruchirappalli R 1594 Pillathurai Primary Agricultural Credit Society and during that period i.e., from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2017, the petitioner and A1 had misappropriated the society funds to the tune of Rs.4,60,000/- by forging the documents, altered the entries in the registers. Hence, the second respondent made a complaint before the first respondent Police and the first respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2017 against the petitioner and the respondent Police conducted the investigation and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District and the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance in C.C.No.75 of 2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 477(A) and 120B r/w 34 of IPC. 2/6

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and there is no specific allegation made against the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the petitioner herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the charges against the petitioner have to be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.In the above circumstances, the trial court has rightly taken the case on file and this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if he is subjected to due trial as sufficient opportunity would be given to the petitioner to put forth his defence. The petitioner cannot be let by quashing the charges framed against him as that would completely undermine the alleged act, which is the subject matter of criminal trial pending against them. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana - Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426). 3/6

6.For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground or scope to quash C.C.No.75 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

7.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court may consider to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the court below. Taking into consideration the request as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appearance of the petitioner before the trial court is dispensed with except for his appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the presence of the petitioner is necessary, the trial court, at its wisdom, shall direct his appearance on those days.

14.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No SJI 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing, Tiruchirappalli.

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

5/6

M.DHANDAPANI. J.

SJI 14.03.2024 6/6