Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The respondent received summons from the learned Sub Judge, Namakkal, in O.S.No.138 of 2001, both by registered post and from process server, calling him to appear on 25.04.2001. The respondent appeared before the Court, the case was not taken up for hearing on that day. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.17552 of 2014 and 8755 of 2017 Thereafter, on enquiry, the respondent was informed that the suit in O.S.No.138 of 2001 was listed for hearing on 02.04.2001, he was set ex parte, and ex parte decree was passed directing him to remove and hand over the Orthofix Fixator to the first petitioner and if the said instrument is not maintained properly, to pay Rs.1,10,000/- with interest. Finding the forgery committed and the dishonest intention of the first petitioner in making false claim and fraudulently obtaining a decree in O.S.No.138 of 2001 on 02.04.2001, the respondent filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, who by order dated 02.09.2016, in C.M.P.No.4943 of 2015, took cognizance against the petitioners, who are A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 209, 210, 211, 465, 466, 468 and 469 I.P.C.

23. As regards the second complaint, it is seen that the complaint is primarily focussed and proceeded on the allegation that the petitioners have obtained an ex parte decree in O.S.No.138 of 2001 before the Sub Court, Namakkal, by setting the respondent ex parte. The primary allegation of the respondent is that, he received notice of summons both by registered post and from the process server, asking him to appear on 25.04.2001 and when he appeared on that day, he was informed that he has been set ex parte on 02.04.2001 and the first petitioner dishonestly made false claim and fraudulently obtained ex parte decree from the Sub-Court, Namakkal. Admittedly, the respondent had not filed any petition to set aside the ex parte decree or filed any appeal before the appellate civil forum. Further, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.17552 of 2014 and 8755 of 2017 filing of second complaint by the respondent on this score is not permissible and the Trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the second complaint, since it is barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the second complaint was filed by a private individual. It is strange to see in the second complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, had taken cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 209, 210, 211, 465, 466, 468 and 469 I.P.C. in C.M.P.No.4943 of 2015, vide order dated 02.09.2016, which is against law and improper. The Trial Court was very well aware about the pending trial of first complaint in C.C.No.164 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 418 and 468 I.P.C. between the respondent and the petitioners. This being so, giving its own interpretation that no penal provisions were mentioned in the first complaint and taking cognizance on the second complaint, is not only absurd, but unheard.