Madras High Court Allows Accused to Skip Most Hearings in Cheating Case

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

V. Maiyappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District & Frances Amanda Murphy (High Court of Madras)

Crl.O.P(MD). No.1317 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD). Nos.891 and 892 of 2025

Date: 27th January 2025

Key Takeaways

• Quash Petition Dismissed: The court did not quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
• Relief on Personal Appearance: The petitioner is excused from appearing in person at most trial dates, except for key hearings (like charge framing, questioning, and judgment).

Right to Defend Preserved: The petitioner can raise all his legal points and defenses during the trial.

• Strict Conditions: The petitioner must be represented by counsel, cannot dispute witness identity, and must appear if the trial judge insists.
• Reference to Precedent: The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, 2001 (4) SCC 667 regarding the court’s power to insist on the accused’s presence if needed.

Issue

Should the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.288 of 2023 (relating to alleged cheating and conspiracy) be quashed, or should the trial proceed with certain relaxations for the accused’s personal appearance?

Facts

• Parties:
• Petitioner/Accused (A6): V. Maiyappan
• Respondents:
• The State of Tamil Nadu (represented by the Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District)
• Frances Amanda Murphy (defacto complainant)
• Background:
• The complainant (Amanda Murphy) established several companies and institutions under the name “Teddy.”
• She appointed one Gavaskar as General Manager while she was abroad.
• Later, she discovered that Gavaskar allegedly cheated and misappropriated several crores of rupees, with the help of other accused persons (including the petitioner).
• Police registered Crime No.52 of 2021 for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 65 of the Income Tax Act, 2000.
• The case was taken on file as C.C.No.288 of 2023 by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam.
• The petitioner was specifically charged under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC.

Arguments

• Petitioner’s Side (V. Maiyappan):
• Sought to quash the criminal proceedings as illegal.
• Through counsel, requested permission to raise all legal points during the trial instead of at this stage.
• Requested exemption from personal appearance at all trial dates, except for essential hearings.
• Respondent’s Side (State of Tamil Nadu):
• Represented by the Government Advocate (Crl. side).
• No detailed counter-arguments are recorded in the order, as the focus shifted to the petitioner’s request for exemption from appearance.

Key Legal Precedents

• State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, 2001 (4) SCC 667:
• The Supreme Court held that the trial court has the authority to insist on the personal appearance of the accused if necessary, especially if the accused adopts dilatory tactics. This precedent was cited to clarify that the trial court retains discretion to require the petitioner’s presence if needed.
• Relevant Statutory Provisions:
• Section 482 of Cr.P.C.: Inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings.
• Section 207 Cr.P.C.: Furnishing of copies to the accused.
• Section 313 Cr.P.C.: Power to examine the accused.
• Section 120B, 420 IPC: Charges of criminal conspiracy and cheating.
• Section 65 of Income Tax Act, 2000: (Specifics not detailed in the order).

Judgement

• Decision:
• The court did not quash the criminal proceedings.
• The petitioner is allowed to raise all his defenses and legal points during the trial.
• The petitioner’s personal appearance is dispensed with for all hearing dates except:

1. When copies are furnished under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and for initial questioning.
2. During questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
3. On the date of judgment.

• The petitioner must:
• File an affidavit undertaking to be represented by counsel at all hearings.
• Not dispute the identity of witnesses.
• Appear if the trial judge insists, especially for identification.
• Avoid any delay tactics, or else the court may insist on his presence and act as per the Supreme Court’s guidance in Shambunath Singh.
• The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

FAQs

Q1: Did the court quash the criminal case against the petitioner?

A: No, the court refused to quash the proceedings. The trial will continue, but the petitioner can raise all his defenses during the trial.

Q2: Does the petitioner have to attend every court hearing?

A: No, the petitioner is excused from most hearings, except for key dates (copy furnishing, questioning, and judgment). He must, however, be represented by a lawyer at all times.

Q3: What happens if the petitioner tries to delay the trial?

A: If the petitioner adopts delay tactics, the trial court can insist on his personal appearance and take action as per the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh.

Q4: Can the petitioner challenge the identity of witnesses?

A: No, as a condition for exemption from appearance, the petitioner cannot dispute the identity of witnesses.

Q5: What legal provisions and precedents were important in this case?

A: The court relied on Section 482 Cr.P.C. (inherent powers), Section 207 and 313 Cr.P.C. (procedural requirements), and the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, 2001 (4) SCC 667.