Madras High Court
Krishna Subbash Chandran vs The State Rep. By on 12 February, 2016
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.02.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2049 of 2016
Krishna Subbash Chandran .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State rep. By
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Tirunagar Police Station,
Madurai District.
In Cr.No.330 of 2008 ... 1st
respondent/Complainant
2. G.Mohan ...2nd Respondent/
defacto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.589 of 2009
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI Madurai and quash the
same as against the petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.
!For Petitioner : No appearance
^For Respondents : Mrs.S.Prabha
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
:O R D E R
This petition has been filed to to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.589 of 2009 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and quash the same as against the Petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 04.02.2016, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, it was posted to 11.02.2016 finally. On 11.02.2016, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter is posted under the caption 'for dismissal' today. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. The respondent Police is present.
3.Therefore, this court perused the final report and the 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by the police.
4. On reading of the final report, it is seen that the defacto complainant is the Secretary of Indira Gandhi Matriculation Higher Secondary School and the petitioner herein/A-2 and other accused were the members of the Association, that was running by the said school. The school owned a bus bearing Regn.No.TMN-2864 and this petitioner along with other accused had created fabricated records and transferred the bus to Russian School, Melur.
5. On reading of the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the witnesses, there are sufficient materials for the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana V. Bajanlal, reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, it is not a fit case to quash the prosecution against the petitioner.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is already 73 years old and his presence before the trial court be dispensed with.
7. Taking into consideration this aspect, this Court directs the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court for collecting the final report and other papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C for framing of charges and for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and on the day of judgment. For all other dates, if the petitioner files an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C, undertaking that he will not dispute his identity and that his counsel will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in their absence without adopting dilatory tactics, the Trial Court may liberally consider and entertain the same. If the petitioner adopt any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist upon his presence.
8. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1052 of 2016 is also dismissed.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No. VI Madurai
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirunagar Police Station, Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..