V. RAMANATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking the relief to call for the records in C.C.No.574 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai, and quash the same as illegal.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the accused and the 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant in the above referred case. On 10.07.2007, as per the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.4894 of 2007, dated 14.06.2007, a case has been registered against the petitioner, by the first respondent Police, for the offence under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) of IPC. After registration of the case, the 1st respondent herein completed the investigation. Based on the report [ Action dropped) submitted by the 1st respondent, the FIR has been closed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6 in RCS No.2499 of 2013. Thereafter, after due permission, further investigation was conducted and charge sheet has been filed in the year of 2016. On receipt of charge sheet, the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6 in C.C.No.574 of 2016, under Sections 416, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) IPC. As of now, the said case was pending for examination of the witnesses.

(3.) Mr.R.Babu Jaganath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in respect to the dispute between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner already a civil suit has been filed in O.S.No.276 of 2005 in which, the 2nd respondent was added as defendant. The said suit was filed for the relief of injunction. The suit property is said to be the disputed property was obtained by the petitioner out of a settlement deed executed by Meenakshi Ammal, who is the mother of the accused. The entire allegation by the 2nd respondent is that the alleged settlement deed said to have been executed by the said Meenakshi Ammal was fabricated one. The learned counsel would further submit that in order to prove the same, no iota of evidence was produced on the side of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, conducting the trial in C.C.No.574 of 2016 is an abuse of process of law.