V K ABDUL KHADER SAHIB Vs. MOHAMMED ZAHIRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Abdul Raseed Advocate for the petitioner in all Cr1. M. Ps. and of Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, Advocate for the 1st Respondent in all Cr. M.Ps., the court made the following order: In all the above petitions Janab V.K. Abdul Khadher Sahib is the petitioner. In all the Cr1. O.Ps. Mohammed Zahirudeen is the petitioner 2nd Accused V.K. Abdul Khader Sahib wants to implead himself as the second respondent in the petitions filed by the accused Mohammed Zahiruddin, in Cr1. O.P. Nos. 1174/92, 1175/ 92, 1176/92 and 1188192 for quashing. The first respondent in all the above Cr1. M.Ps. is Mohammed Zahiruddin. He filed the above said Cri. O.Ps. for quashing the proceedings pending against him in C.C. Nos. 106/89, 104/82, 105/89 and 107/89 on the file of the learned Judicial. Magistrate. J, Kancheepuram. The first respondent is the second accused in the above said criminal cases. The petitioner in the above criminal Miscellaneous Petitions was a Muthavalli in respect of Olimohamedper Labbai Jumma Mosque and criminal cases had been initiated by the petitioner against the first respondent and other persons who were also charged as the accused in the Criminal cases for the alleged defaulcation of accounts tinder Sections 379, 403, 406, 409, 420, 426, 476, 477, 120, 206 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation by the Police Charge Sheets were filed against the first respondent herein and other in C.C. No. 104/89 for the alleged defaulcation of a sum of Rs. 1,128-01, in C.C. No. 105/89, for a sum of Rs. 1,355-00, in C.C. No. 106/89, for a sum of Rs. 100-00 out of Rs. 1,339-00 and in C.C. No. 107/89 for a sum of Rs. 57-00 out of Rs. 1,339-00. The first respondent has filed the above said criminal original petitions for quashing under Section 482 Cr. P.C. In these petitions for quashing, the petitioner herein wants to implead himself as the second respondent and contest the case. The respondent in all the criminal original petitions is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector of Police, (Law & Order), Kancheepuram.

(2.) The merits and demerits of the case relating to various calender cases referred to above, need not be discussed in detail for the purpose of finding out whether the petitioner herein in all the above said Cr1. M.Ps. can be allowed to be impleaded as second respondent in all the criminal original petitions for quashing.

(3.) The petitioner in all the criminal miscellaneous petitions has averred various circumstances in the petition stating that he is a necessary and proper party and so that he has to be impleaded for effective adjudication of the matters in dispute. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in Cr1. O.Ps. Mr. Karpagavinayagam pointed out to me the judgment of this court (Janarthnam) made in Cr1. M.P. No. 541 of 1992 in Cr1. O.P. No. 9440/91, Cr1. M.P. No. 1718/92 in Cr1. O.P, No. 1209192, and Cr1. O.P. No. 2410/92. In the above said judgment, learned. Judge has discussed in detail about the scope and legality of the third party, even he may be a person who has set the law in motion to get himself impleaded in a criminal proceedings in which the Slate is the complainant against a third party. In all the above said Cr1. O.Ps., the State is the complainant and the first respondent herein is the accused. The petitioner in all Criminal miscellaneous petitions may be having interest in the prosecution of the first respondent as a person interested in the Mosque. Learned Judge at the end after discussing the various judgments and also the judgment of this court made in R. Sekhar v. Narayanan; (1992 M.L.J. - Cr1. 76 (Pratab Singh, J)) held that no third party inclusive of the informant or the complainant can be allowed to get himself impleaded as a party or as an intervener to any stage of any criminal proceedings, before the court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abdul Rasheed contended that the Judgment rendered by Pralab Singh, J referred to above, is a judgment in favour of him and the judgment of Janarthanam, J., has not dealt with the ratio decided by Pratab Singh, J. Janarthanam, J -has considered the judgment of Partap Singh J. and found that the judgment rendered by Pralab Singh, J does not decide the dispute in question and so learned Judge Janarthanam, J has considered the judgment of Pratab Singh, J and the Judgments of the other courts and the Apex Court of this country and gave a final verdict. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is a proper party for being impleaded in all these petitions. Following the views of Janarthanam, J, I too hold that the petitioner is not entitled to implead himself as a second respondent in all the petitions for quashing.