Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Upon registration of the case, the fifth and sixth respondents herein, who are arrayed as A-1 and A-4 in Crime No. 41 of 2013 respectively, have filed Crl.OP Nos. 14228 and 14229 of 2013 before this Court praying for grant of bail. This Court, by an order dated 25.06.2013 granted bail to them subject to certain conditions. While granting bail, this Court also recorded the statement of the counsel for the petitioner therein that the first Accused Gopal is repenting to the effect that he has impersonated wrongly in giving his father's name for creating the documents.

6. Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that earlier, when the investigation officer has closed the complaint given by the petitioner as mistake of fact, the petitioner has filed Crl.R.C. No. 680 of 2014 and this Court directed the petitioner to file a protest petition. In the order dated 28.08.2014 passed by this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 680 of 2014, it was made clear that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet is not a reasoned order and the said Court ought not to have accepted the final report filed by the investigation officer without adducing any reasons. In other words, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet accepting the closure report of the investigation officer is a cryptic order without any reasons for accepting the final report of the investigation officer. Further, in the order which is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case, the learned learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet has narrated the factual scenario and eventually, without adducing any reasons, dismissed the protest petition filed by the petitioner. Such an order passed by the court below is without any reasons and without application of mind to the various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. Above all, the investigation officer in the final report has stated that there was no impersonation as alleged in the complaint. It was further stated that one Gopal, son of Appu has signed as a confirming party. It was further pointedout that there is no material evidence to show that Gopal, Son of Appu had acted and/or impersonated as Gopal, Son of Arasan. The fact remains that the power of attorney deed was actually executed by A. Gopal, Son of Appu by impersonation inasmuch as A. Gopal, son of Arasan died long back in the year 1999. Further, it is mainly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in the final report filed by the investigation officer, the confession statement given by one of the accused before this Court has been overlooked. Such admission made by one of the accused has been clearly recorded by this Court in the order dated 25.06.2013 in Crl.OP Nos. 14928 and 14929 of 2013. In the order dated 25.06.2013, this Court had recorded the affidavit filed by one of the accused stating that "learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitiner repents for the mistake and has also filed an affidavit before this Court stating that 'I have committed an offence of impersonation by putting my father's name as Arasan instead of Appu." Inspite of these material evidence, the Court below has failed to direct the investigation officer to conduct proper enquiry.

17. In the bail application filed before this Court in Crl.OP Nos. 14928 and 14929 of 2013, an affidavit was filed by Gopal, son of Appu as directed by this Court. While granting bail, I had recorded the affidavit filed by Gopal, son of Appu in para No.3 to the effect that "Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner repents for the mistake and has also filed an affidavit before this Court stating that "I have committed an offence of impersonation by putting by father's name as Arasan instead of Appu caused to be sold the property belonged to Hall Mark Infrastructure Private Limited. It is further stated in the said affidavit that I have no title, interest or claim." This portion of the order passed by this Court granting bail in favour of the petitioners therein would indicate that an admission was made to the effect that there was an act of impersonation and the petitioner Gopal, son of Appu repents for the same.