A. VIJAYARANI Vs. KARUPPANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitioner has preferred the instant two Criminal Revision Petitions before this Court, being aggrieved against the common order dated 25.02.2015 in Cr.M.P. Nos. 8882 and 8885 of 2014 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Trichy District.

(2.) The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, while passing the impugned common order in Cr.M.P. Nos. 8882 and 8885 of 2014 (filed by the Revision Petitioner as Petitioner under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), at paragraph -6, had inter alia observed that "... on behalf of the Accused in S.T.C. No. 402 of 2012, the witnesses mentioned in the witness list (submitted on the side of the Accused) viz., Dhandabani @ Senthil, Namakkal IDBI Bank Manager for whom summons was sought to be issued and on behalf of the Accused (Revision Petitioner), batta was not paid and under these circumstances, the evidence on the side of the Accused (Revision Petitioner) was closed on 11.06.2014 and at that point of time, Cr.M.P. Nos. 5101 and 5102 of 2014 were filed to recall P.W.1 were dismissed by this Court on 08.08.2014, with an observation that there were no grounds to allow the same and subsequently, when the case was posted for hearing the arguments, at that point of time, the Accused has filed the present petition etc., and ultimately, opined that at the initial stage itself that, in the case cheques, the plea that they were not his signatures and they were created, such kind of stand was not taken and when the case was posted for arguments, at that point of time, the filing of the two petitions was meant with a view to delay the proceeding and resultantly dismissed the petitions.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the common order dated 25.02.2015 in Cr.M.P. Nos. 8882 and 8885 of 2014, the Revision Petitioner/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petitions before this Court, exercising the procedural facility enunciated under Criminal Procedure Code, contending that the common order dated 25.02.2015 in Cr.M.P. Nos. 8882 and 8885 of 2014 is against Law and also in negation of the material facts available on record and as such, the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.