Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.10.2021 made in Crl.MP.No.758 of 2020 in CC.No.123 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy and to discharge the petitioners from the above said case by allowing this revision petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners 1 & 2 are arrayed as accused Nos.2 & 3 in CC.No.123 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, Namakkal District. In the above referred case, the respondent police filed final report as against the petitioners and two others alleging that they committed offence punishable under Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Later, the petitioners herein filed a petition before the said Court under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they prayed to discharge them from the above said offence. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, after providing an opportunity to the respondent police, by order dated 08.10.2021, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners saying that there was a prima facie case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis as against the petitioners for framing charges. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this Court with the present criminal revision petition.

3. Heard, Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam(crl.side) appearing for the respondent police.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are signed as a witness to the document alleged to be executed by the first accused. In otherwise, the petitioners did not know anything about the transaction having by the first accused with one, Lakshmi i.e. the defacto complainant. Further, after preparation of alleged sale agreement dated 30.06.1999, civil suit has also been filed, wherein both the learned District Munsif at Paramathi and the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal concurrently held that the petition mentioned property belongs to the said Lakshmi and therefore, there was no nexus between the crime and the petitioners. But the trial court, without considering those aspects, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., which is erroneous in law.

10. Therefore in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 08.10.2021 passed in Crl.MP.No.758 of 2020 in CC.No.123 of 2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Paramathy is having much reasoning and accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.

18.04.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R. PONGIAPPAN, J.

lok To

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal, Namakkal District

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

18.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis