Madras High Court
Anantharaman vs State Rep. By on 21 October, 2021
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.No.15655 of 2018
Anantharaman ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Rep. By
Sub Inspector of Police
Cyber Crime Cell
Central Crime Branch
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
2. Abdul Kadar Tajudeen ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call
for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C. No. 3317 of 2017 on the file
of the Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB & CBCID Court, Egmore at Allikulam,
Chennai quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For Respondents : Mr.C.E.Pratap (For R1)
Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to call for the entire records in CC.No.3317 of 2014 on the file of the learned J Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis & CBCID Court, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai and quash the same.
1 Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 20182. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the subject property, which was stolen by the accused, has been recovered by the respondent police and therefore, the defacto complainant has not inclined to proceed the matter further.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate and perused the materials available on record.
4. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, this Court is of the opinion the issue is a triable issue and the grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner are all factual in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Court and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below.
5.It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this Court may issue a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis complete the same as early as possible. He would further submit that the 2 Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.
6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of C.C. No.3517 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible as per seniority of the case. The petitioners and respondent are directed to co-operate with the trial court for the early completion of trial. Further, taking into consideration the request as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, their appearance before the trial court is dispensed with except for their 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 their appearance on those days. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.
21.10.2021 Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index :Yes/No rli https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis M.DHANDAPANI, J.
3 Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018rli To
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB & CBCID Court, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Cell Central Crime Branch Egmore, Chennai – 8.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018and Crl.M.P.No.15655 of 2018 Dated : 21.10.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 And Crl.M.P.No.15655 of 2018 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
The matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that inadvertently, this Court has discussed the facts relating to some other case in the order dated 21.10.2021 made in Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.15655 of 2018 and prayed this Court to recall the order dated 21.10.2021 made in Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.15655 of 2018 and to pass appropriate orders.
3.In view of the above, the order dated 21.10.2021 made in Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.15655 of 2018 is recalled and the following order is passed:
“O R D E R The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.3317 of 2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CBCID Court, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai and to quash the same.
2.The facts of the case is that on 04.06.2010 one Abdul https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Kadir Tajudeen lodged a complaint before the Commissioner 5 Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 of Police, Chennai, alleging that he had a joint NRI account (A/c No.602501200242) along with his wife Tajudeen Regina Begum in ICICI Bank in Purasaiwalkam. He is provided with a debit card bearing No.4213 9560 2590 0596 and was working as a Lead Processing Engineer in Qatar. On 01.06.2010, the complainant found that a sum of Rs.2,15,190/- had been debited from his account through various transactions from 22.05.2010 to 01.06.2010 without his knowledge. Based on his complaint, a case in X Cr.No.364 of 2010 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC was registered by the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent took up the investigation and after investigation filed final report as against the accused for the offence under Sections 381, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) of I.P.C.
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CBCID Court, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.3317 of 2017. Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3317 of 2017, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during the pendancy of this petition, the petitioner and the defacto complainant entered into compromise by settling the dispute and the defacto complainant sent letter to the law enforcing agency that he is not inclined to pursue the case, however, the law enforcing agency did not withdraw the case pending before the trial Court. Hence, this Court may issue direction to the law enforcing agency to make appropriate application before the trial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Court for withdrawal of the complaint.
6 Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 20184.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that based on the complaint made by the defacto complainant, the law enforcing agency registered the case and after investigation filed final report before the trial Court and subsequently, if any letter is received from the defacto complainant, it has to be placed before the trial Court and the law enforcing agency has no power for making application for withdrawal of the complaint. The power is vested with the State Government and even the State Government cannot withdraw the complaint without consultation of the learned Public Prosecutor and approval from the competent Court. Hence, if any letter was received by the law enforcing agency from the defacto complainant, the same will be placed before the trial Court at the time of trial.
5.Though several grounds have been raised in this petition, the issue involved in the case is disputed question of fact, which has to be decided by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for in this petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner as well as the defacto complainant to file appropriate petition before the trial Court to work out the remedy in the manner known to law. If any such petition is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
6.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays that the appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7.Considering the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the appearance of the petitioner 7 Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 before the Trial Court is dispensed with. However, this order will not stand on the way of the Trial Court to insist for the appearance of the petitioner for receiving copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and judgment and as and when the Trial Court feels it necessary.
8.With the above observations, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
4.Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and re-
issue copy of the order to the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties.
07.12.2021 pri https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri Crl.O.P.No.27102 of 2018 And Crl.M.P.No.15655 of 2018 07.12.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9