MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Friday directed a trial court to frame charges against nine persons in a forgery and cheating case registered by Melavalavu police in 2012.
Justice G Jayachandran gave the directions challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I of Madurai confirming the Melur Judicial Magistrate's decision to discharge the nine persons from the criminal case in 2015. The petition was filed by Melur Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The facts of the case, as mentioned in Justice Jayachandran's judgment, were that the nine persons were allegedly involved in selling land belonging to an Ayyanar temple in Kavattaiyanpatti of Melur by forging false documents.
Among the nine accused, three were trustees of the temple. The trio sold the 10.88 acres property worth Rs 1.5 crore to PR Palanichamy of PRP Granites for `1.57 lakh in 2006.
Following a complaint lodged by M Gopalakrishnan, the Melur police had registered a case in 2012 and filed a final report in May 2013 against the nine persons under IPC Sections 465 and 420 among others.
But the Melur Judicial Magistrate, at the time of framing charges, discharged the nine persons from the case in 2015 by accepting their contention that it is a civil dispute. Though the police filed a revision petition, it was dismissed by the Sessions Judge the next year. Challenging this, the police approached the High Court Bench in 2017.
Hearing the plea, Justice Jayachandran observed the three trustees were meagre managers/administrators of the village property and not its owners. Hence, the lower court ought to have taken note of the fact that they have no authority to sell the property, he said.
Further criticising the two lower courts, the judge said, "The court in a discharge petition cannot make a roving inquiry and conduct a mini-trial, which the courts below have unfortunately done in this case. Whether it is done due to ignorance of the law or for extraneous consideration, is not the concern of this court for disposing the petition."
Holding that the material placed before the trial court by the prosecution prima facie was sufficient to frame charges against the nine persons, Justice Jayachandran directed the trial court to frame appropriate charges and complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.