Pallonji Shapoorji Mistry v. Kader Oli - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9397 of 2006 [2007] RD-TN 759 (1 March 2007)
| |
DATED : 01/03/2007
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9397 of 2006
1.Pallonji Shapoorji Mistry
2.Cyrus P.Mistry
3.Shapoor P.Mistry .. Petitioners Vs.
Kader Oli .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, to permit the petitioners counsel, who is on Special Vakalat u/s.205 Cr.P.C. to receive the copies and proceed further in the said C.C.No.212 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.V.Venkatapathy Senior Counsel
For Mr.G.Vijay Anand Associates
For Respondent : Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.S.Ramachandran :ORDER
The petitioners herein are accused Nos.6,8 and 9 in C.C.No.212 of 2004 at present pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. The said case was instituted on private complaint by the respondent herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406,417,420,422,423,468 and 120(B) IPC.
2. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, after recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses and after perusing the documentary evidence produced by the complainant, dismissed the said complaint as not maintainable by an order dated 24.05.2004 under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
3. Challenging the said order, the respondent herein/complainant preferred a revision before this Court (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.5 of 2005 and the same was allowed by an order dated 09.02.2005 directing the Judicial Magistrate to take the complaint on file and issue process to the respondents therein and pass orders in accordance with law.
4. As against the said order passed by this Court, the respondents/accused persons preferred a Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.1894 of 2005 on the file of the Honourable Supreme Court and the same was eventually disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file a petition for discharge. Thereafter instead of filing a petition for discharge, the petitioners herein chose to file Crl.O.P.No.9761 of 2005 on the file of this Court seeking an order quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.212 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. The said criminal original petition was also dismissed on 10.03.2006 and the Special Leave Petition filed against the said order, viz., S.L.P.(Crl).No.1942 of 2006 was also dismissed with an observation that the petitioners could move an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C before the trial Court. Pursuant to the said observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court, the petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 205 (1) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.4953 to 4955 of 2006. The said petitions were allowed on 19.09.2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, directing that they should appear in person before the trial Court on the next hearing date, viz., 27.10.2006 for receiving the copies of the complaint and other documents. Contending that already copies of the complaint and other documents had already been received and that the supply of copies of necessary documents could be made to the counsel on record, as the petitioners have been permitted to appear through counsel dispensing with their attendance in person under Section 205 Cr.P.C., the insistence upon personal appearance at the stage is quite unnecessary and unreasonable. The petitioners have come forward with this criminal original petition seeking a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul not to insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioners herein simply for the purpose of receiving copies.
5. The respondent has entered appearance through a counsel and has chosen to make his submissions on merit in the main o.P. itself and prayed for the disposal of the main criminal original petition on merit.
6. The submissions made by Mr.K.V.Venkatapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and also by Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent have been heard.
7. The petitioners have sought for a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul not to insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioners herein just for the purpose of receiving the copies.
8. Admittedly, the trial Court did pass an order in the petitions filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners for the time being and permitting the petitioners to appear through a counsel, of course with a condition that the petitioners should appear on a specified future date. The grievance of the petitioners is that when the trial Court has chosen to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners under Section 205 Cr.P.C, they should not be directed to appear in person unreasonably. Admittedly the discharge petitions filed by the petitioners are yet to be disposed of.
9. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the personal appearance of the petitioners shall not be necessary before the disposal of the discharge petition. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that in the event of dismissal of the discharge petition, the petitioners will not seek exemption from personal appearance at the time of framing of charges and that hence a time may be fixed for the disposal of the discharge petition without insisting upon personal appearance of the petitioners herein.
10. The learned senior counsel for the respondent also represents that the said representation made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners can be recorded and a direction as prayed for may be issued, directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul not to insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioners till the disposal of the discharge petition with a further direction that the discharge petition should be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by the Court. Both the counsel agree that a time of one month shall be reasonable.
11. In view of the above said representation, this Court comes to a conclusion that a direction to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul not to insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioners till the disposal of the discharge petition with a further direction that the discharge petition should be disposed of within a period of one month from this date.
12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
SML
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Dindigul.
