CHINNADURAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, namely, Chinnadurai and Ramasamy, who are A2 and A1 in C.C.No.72 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet, filed this petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

(2.) A-2 Chinnadurai and defacto complainant Sivakumar are Advocates practising in Udumalpet. One Thangavel had a civil case. A-2 appeared for him, while the defacto complainant appeared against him. In this connection, Sivakumar complained as against Advocate Chinnadurai(A1) and his Clerk Ramasamy(A2). The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet directed investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the first respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station filed final report before the said Magistrate as against the petitioners. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance thereon for offences under Sections 465, 469 and 471 IPC as against A1, while under Sections 465 r/w 34, 469 r/w 109 r/w 34, 471 r/w 109 r/w 34 IPC as against A-2. The summons were issued to the accused. Setting out certain reasons, they came forward with this petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

(3.) The defacto complainant, Sivakumar filed CMP.No.2755 of 2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-1, Udumalpet for sending the disputed telegram to forensic expert's opinion. It was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. As against that Sivakumar preferred Crl.R.C.No.204 of 2010.