ARULRAJ Vs. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VALLIYOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking for quashing C. C. No. 365 of 1989, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli.

(2.) Facts in brief are : A complaint was filed under S. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to (for short) as 'the Code', for an offence under Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein by the respondent.

(3.) Petitioner is working as District Munsif in the subordinate Judicial Service of the State of Tamil Nadu. As advocate the petitioner herein appeared in a maintenance case filed by one Nesammal against her husband. He gave a complaint against one Mohan and his counsel Thiru. Thilak Manohar alleging theft of a letter from his case bundle at Valliyur Police Station. The case was registered in Crime No. 317 of 1987 for an offence under Section 379, I.P.C. A charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. The advocate Thilak Manohar was discharged. In respect of the other accused the case proceeded with the trial and the case was transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ambasamudram. The elder brother of Thilak Manohar succeeded as the Judicial Magistrate Valliyur, in place of Mr. Xavier, on his transfer. The case of the petitioner is that at the instance of the advocate Thilak Manohar, to wreak vengeance a complaint was registered under S. 340 of the Code by the brother of Thilak Manohar, who was at the relevant point of time the Judicial Magistrate at Valliyur. It is alleged that the Magistrate, who enquired into the maintenance case in M. C. No. 78 of 1988, nowhere in his order held that the action under Section 340 of the Code for an offence under Section 193, I.P.C. against the petitioner or the witnesses is expedient in the interests of justice. It is further alleged that no notice was issued to show cause why the complaint should not be laid ? It is also the contention that the order in M. C. No. 78 of 1985 does not contain any material against the petitioner herein for preferring a complaint under S. 340 of the Code for an offence under S. 193, I.P.C. and not even a suggestion to P.W. 1 in M. C. No. 78 of 1985 that the petitioner connived with the party in the alleged fabrication of the letter Ex. P. 18 and P. 19 and also contended that the reception of Ex. P. 18 and P. 19 was objected on the ground that they are the xerox copies, inadmissible in evidence. The record of the case was called for. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that there is no enquiry of an order under Section 340 of the Code stating that it is expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute the petitioner.