W.A. No. 957 of 2015. Case: V. Kanakarajan Vs Ramanathan and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.A. No. 957 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person |
| Judges | Satish K. Agnihotri and M. Venugopal, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 441, 441A, 442, 443, 444, 446, 449; Constitution of India - Articles 136, 215, 226; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 193, 196, 294(b), 323, 384, 387, 420, 427, 448, 465, 506(ii), 506(i) |
| Judgement Date | July 28, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
M. Venugopal, J.
-
The Appellant has preferred the present intra Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.SR No. 28426 of 2015.
-
The Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order on 30.04.2015 in W.P.SR No. 28426 of 2015 in para 3 had observed the following:
"3. The petitioner-in-person has filed the application, resubmitting the papers, without properly answering the queries raised by the Registry. He also demanded that the matter may be placed 'For Maintainability' before this Court. The petitioner-in-person strenuously argued before me that the two Judicial Officers had passed illegal orders in the year 2009 and had accepted surety bonds without testing the genuineness in accordance with Section 441-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court gave a patient hearing to the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner/party-in-person is aggrieved with certain judicial orders that were passed by the respondents in the year 2009 and for that, he wants CBI enquiry to be done, which is not tenable. The objections raised by the Registry is upheld. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed."
and resultantly, dismissed the Petition.
Appellant's Contentions:
-
According to the Appellant/Petitioner (Party-in-Person), the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition was incorrectly and incompletely quoted by the Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order in W.P.SR.28426 of 2015.
-
The Appellant in person submits that the Registry's return of Petition with regard to maintainability was suitably answered and the relevant papers were re-submitted stating that the Writ Petition filed by him was perfectly maintainable in Law.
-
The Appellant/Party-in-Person contends that the Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order in W.P.SR. No. 28426 of 2015 had not considered the notes of arguments, affidavit and petition and the citations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further, ignored the same without proper reasons or justification.
-
The Appellant/Petitioner urges before this Court that the Learned Single Judge had committed an error while making an observation in the impugned order in W.P.SR. No. 28426 of 2015 to the effect that "he is challenging the illegal order passed during the year 2009 belatedly in the year 2015".
-
At this stage, it is the plea of the Appellant that he was diligently and continuously challenging the aforesaid three bogus counterfeit bail bonds, six bogus surety affidavits, six fraudulent and bogus surety memos and the illicit acceptance of the aforesaid bogus counterfeit bail bonds, bogus surety affidavits and fraudulent surety memos by the Respondents 1 and 2 on 21.12.2009 and 29.10.2012 respectively.
-
The Appellant projects an argument that the Learned Single Judge while dismissing the W.P.SR.28426 of 2015 had failed to consider the fact that serious fraud, collusion and conspiracy was committed on this Court, himself and on his family members despite several documentary proofs and prima-facie proofs recorded by the lower Court etc.
-
Further, the Appellant takes an emphatic stand that only CBI high level enquiry and its report is only reliable assistance to this Court to render justice because of the fact that Respondents 1 and 2 are powerful and influential.
-
The prime stand of the Appellant is that he argued before the Learned Single Judge about the illegal orders passed in the year 2009 only and not for testing the genuineness of the surety bonds.
-
The Appellant strenuously submits that because of the fraud committed by the Respondents 1 and 2, the accused and his associates had played fraud which were already proved by him with documentary proofs. Also that the Learned Single Judge should have taken Suo Moto proceedings to prosecute the above said persons under Sections 193, 196, 420, 465, 120-B of IPC and punish them in the interests of justice in administration.
-
The Appellant submits that the accused, his so-called two sureties, his Advocates, then Assistant Public Prosecutor, Inspector of Police, Pazhavanthangal Police Station and the then Judicial Magistrate, Alandur are of very powerful and influential persons involved in the fraud on Court, himself and his family members and as such, an impartial high level enquiry of CBI will only pinpoint the aforesaid frauds etc. In this connection, the plea of the Appellant is that in case of frauds committed on Courts, no technical reasons or excuses such as limitation, other order in collateral proceedings or earlier proceedings should be entertained. Moreover, the basic principle is a party who secured a judgment by fraud should not be able to enjoy the fruits thereof and in support of this proposition, the Appellant cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial