1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6476 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2011 M.Velayutham : Petitioner/Accused-2 -Vs- 1.The State by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tuticorin. 2.Rameshwari : Respondents/Complainants PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for records in C.C.No.16 of 2001 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Murugesan For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani G.A. (Crl. Side) for R1 M/s.Eddy and Embboss for R2 O R D E R This petition is filed to call for records in C.C.No.16 of 2001 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin and quash the same. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is A2 and he is only the brother of the defacto complainant and on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case in crime No.11 of 2001 has been registered for the offence under Sections 419, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 I.P.C and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against 3 persons, which was taken cognizable in C.C.No.16 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the defacto complainant and her husband/A1 has purchased the property jointly and since there is a misunderstanding, they got divorce and thereafter, the husband of the defacto complainant/A1 paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- and got the sale deed executed in his favour and since the defacto complainant has refused to register the document, they presented https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the document before the Sub Registrar for compulsory registration and the Sub Registrar, after following the procedure, registered the document. Now, the 2nd respondent has preferred a complaint, on the basis of the which, the present case has been registered. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner/A2 is nothing to do with the commission of offence and he fairly conceded that the petitioner herein has moved a petition for quash, which was dismissed and against which, he preferred S.L.P., which was also dismissed. He would further submit that they are having vital documents to prove that no prima offence has been made out against the petitioner, who is the brother-in-law and hence, he prayed for the quashing the complaint in C.C.No.16 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin. 5.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that it is not the first round of litigation and it is the 4th round litigation and the petitioner has filed series of applications for quashing the proceedings, which were all dismissed and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this application. 6.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would fairly agree to dispose of the case in C.C.No.16 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate NO.1, Tuticorin, within a period of three months instead of quashing the proceedings. 7.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, even though, a case has been registered against the petitioner and two his brothers, who are the attestors of the sale deed and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. But, admittedly, the petitioner has filed a petition to quash the proceedings in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5078 of 2005and the same was dismissed on 08.08.2005, against which, he filed S.L.P.No.4496 of 2007, which was also dismissed on 20.04.2007 and he filed another application for discharging him from the charges in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11975 of 2007 and that has also been dismissed on 09.12.2010, against which he has preferred a criminal Revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.956 of 2010, which was also dismissed and he preferred a S.L.P., which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 13.05.2011 and hence it is clear that the petitioner has filed series of application. 8.In such circumstances, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2001, however, considering the pendency of the case, I direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.16 of 2001 pending on his file, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal of this case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9.With the above said direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrarr To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin. 2.DO through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin District 3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tuticorin. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to M/s.E.Murugesan, Advocate, SR.No.32523 arul rl/6c – 4.10.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6476 of 2011 21.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/