N. Periyasamy vs State

C.T. Selvam, J.—This revision arises against the order, dated 31.07.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, in C.M.P. No. 7149 of 2012 in C.C. No. 126 of 2011.

The matter stood posted under the head for orders, on 7.08.2014, immediately after admission. We have heard Mr. John Sathiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel on record, for the petitioners on 07.08.2014 and the matter stood posted ''for orders'' today. Today, a further representation seeking adjournment is made on behalf of the petitioners.

Heard Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the first respondent and Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for R2 and R3.

The petitioners, who are accused in the case pending trial in C.C. No. 126 of 2011, for offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with 511 and 109 IPC, on the file the jurisdictional Magistrate, Kangayam, have sought discharge under petition in C.M.P. No. 7149 of 2012. Against the dismissal of such petition under orders dated 31.07.2013, the present petition stands filed.

It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed an action seeking specific performance in O.S. No. 153 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Arakonam. The respondents 2 and 3, defendants in the case, had moved an application for expert opinion regards the sale agreement, which form the basis of the civil action. Upon the opinion of the expert informing acts of forgery, the second respondent obtained a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, case in Crime No. 533 of 2007 was registered, on 30.06.2007, on the file of the first respondent for offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. Pursuant to investigation, charge-sheet informing commission of offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with 511 IPC and 109 IPC was filed.

It was contended on behalf of petitioners that the respondents 2 and 3 were seeking to give criminal colour to a civil dispute and that the respondents 2 and 3 have resorted to affixing improper signatures on the sale agreement and taking advantage of the same, have caused expert opinion and preferred the complaint.

The Court below, in dismissing the petition for discharge, has informed that the petitioners were silent about the stage of the civil suit whether the same was pending or disposed of; none of the documents relating to the civil suit have been filed before it to establish the contention of the petitioners and that without examining the prosecution witness and without perusing the documents relating to the sale agreement, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of offence. It has added that where a prima facie case stands made out through investigation, the petition for discharge is to be dismissed. We are not impressed by the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the out come of the civil suit is to be awaited before progress can be made in the criminal action. This criminal revision case shall stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.