RANGARAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defacto complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impleading petition in M. P. Nos. 3 and 3 of 2009 in both the Crl. R. C. Nos. 992 and 993 of 2009 are ordered and the defacto complainants have been impleaded as second respondents in both the Criminal revisions.

(2.) IN both the cases the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A2 and both the cases are similar in nature wherein the petitioner has been charged under Sections 466, 467, 420 read with 109 IPC. The case in C. C. No. 592 of 2007 was taken on file, on the complaint given by the defacto complainant/a. Gunasekaran arrayed as second respondent in Crl. R. C. No. 992 of 2009. The case in C. C. No. 591 of 2007 was taken on file on the complaint given by the defacto complainant/p. Rathinam alias Rathinavel who has been arrayed as second respondent in Crl. R. C. No. 993 of 2009.

(3.) CHALLENGING the order dated 25. 09. 2009 made in Crl. M. P. No. 1639 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial magistrate-II, Erode, these two revisions have been preferred by the petitioner/a2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A2 in a case pending in C. C. No. 592 of 2007 that was registered under Sections 466,467, 468, 420 read with 109 IPC. The petitioner herein had filed the criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the trial Court under Section 265 of the code of Criminal Procedure Code seeking an order of discharge that was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner/a2. Aggrieved by which, these Criminal Revisions have been preferred by the petitioner.