ADHILAKSHMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petition and Crl. Mps. coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions filed in support thereof on the file of the High Court and upon hearing Mr. P. C. Narayanan, advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran, Govt., Advocate (Crl. side) on behalf of the respondent in all the petitions, the Court made the following Order :

(2.) THE accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 3120/98 seeks to quash the proceedings pending against her by way of Crl. O.P. No. 1850 of 2000. THE very same person, who is figuring as accused No. 20 in CC No. 2/2000 on the file of the TNPID Court, High Court Buildings, Chennai, seeks to quash the proceedings pending against her in the abovesaid case by way of Crl. O.P. No. 8514 of 2000. Since the petitioner and respondent are one and the same and the points involved are also one and the same, common order is passed in both the O.Ps.

(3.) "We have perused all those paras and other parts of the case diary and find that the trial Magistrate was not justified in his observations so far as the appellants are concerned. We are conscious of the fact that in the normal circumstances, this Court or the High Court while deciding the sufficiency of the evidence would not resort to the perusal of the case diary and sit in appeal over the judgment of the investigating officer but as the trial Magistrate is apparently shown to have recorded wrongly with respect to the facts allegedly noticed in the case diary, this Court vide order dated 17-7-1998 had no option but to direct the counsel of the respondent State to produce the documents referred to in the report filed under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On perusal of F.I.R., the final report under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all other documents accompanying it, we are satisfied that no case is made out against any of the appellants and the pendency of the proceedings against them before the Magistrate is an abuse of process of Court."