V JAGANATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal original petition has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 1.4.2003 made in Crl.M.P.No.689 of 2003 in C.C.No.1100 of 1999 to recall the petitioner as P.W.2, which is pending on the file of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

(2.) On a perusal of the materials placed on record, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the interver and the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side, it comes to be known that the petitioner is the Director of M/s.Ramaniam Real Estates Private Limited, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai and he is P.W.2 in the said case, which is registered on a complaint lodged by one Mohan against his sister's daughter by name Maragatha Mani along with two other persons for the offences punishable under Sections 466,471 and 474 IPC. The petitioner would submit that the said Maragathamani sold her lands along with two cents belonging to the said Mohan as his power agent to the customers of the petitioner and the sale deeds were also executed by the said Maragathamani; that all of a sudden, after the buildings were constructed, problems started to galore and the said Mohan issued a lawyer's notice on 28.11.1995 to the petitioner and the said Maragatha Mani stating that the said Maragathamani forged the power of attorney and sold the lands without his consent; that the said notice was replied by the petitioner on 21.12.1995 and subsequently another notice was also issued by the said Mohan on 5.6.1997, which was also replied by them on 14.6.1997; that in the meantime, the said Mohan, has lodged a complaint before the respondent herein, who issued a notice to the petitioner to attend an enquiry on 15.6.1996; that on receipt of the said police notice under Sections 91 and 160 Cr.P.C., he sent a reply through registered post on 17.6.1996 narrating all the incidents; that earlier, on 15.2.1996, the complainant received all the relevant papers from his Advocate.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that thereafter he was not examined and no statement was given by him orally to anybody earlier or subsequent to 17.6.1996, the one which he sent in writing; that thereafter also, the Inspector of Police sent notices to come to his Office for giving statement and on no occasion, he has recorded any statement other than the one given by him in writing; that thereafter, he received summons in the above matter from Court to depose evidence as prosecution witness and the Police, who came to serve the summons informed him to come and depose what he has given in writing earlier on 17.6.1996; that on various occasions, the case was adjourned and finally he was examined in chief in January, 2003; that during the course of examination, the Public Prosecutor put certain questions, as if he stated earlier, which he denied and thereafter the Public Prosecutor treated him hostile and sought permission to cross-examine him and the Court granted leave.