Madras High Court
S.Devi Padmanabhan vs Arjun Amaravathy Chit P Ltd on 5 July, 2012
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 05.07.2012 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.R.C.Nos.798 to 804 of 2006 S.Devi Padmanabhan .. Petitioner in all revisions Vs. Arjun Amaravathy Chit P Ltd., No.30, (Old No.190), Kutchery Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. .. Respondent in all revisions Prayer in all revisions:- Criminal Revisions are filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set-aside the orders in Crl.M.P.No.3688 of 2005 in C.C.No.6712 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3689 of 2005 in C.C.No.6808 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3690 of 2005 in C.C.No.6807 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.6598 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.3172 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3692 of 2005 in C.C.No.3173 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3693 of 2005 in C.C.No.3174 of 2004, respectively on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 12.04.2006. For Petitioner in all Crl.RCs' : Mr.K.Rajasekaran For Respondent in all Crl.RCs' : Mr.B.Divakaran - - - COMMON ORDER
The petitioner / accused has preferred the above revisions against the order dismissing the petitions in Crl.M.P.No.3688 of 2005 in C.C.No.6712 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3689 of 2005 in C.C.No.6808 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3690 of 2005 in C.C.No.6807 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.6598 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.3172 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3692 of 2005 in C.C.No.3173 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3693 of 2005 in C.C.No.3174 of 2004, respectively, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The complainant has filed cases against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the complaints were taken on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet as C.C.No.6712 of 2003, C.C.No.6808 of 2003, C.C.No.6807 of 2003, C.C.No.6598 of 2003, C.C.No.3172 of 2004, C.C.No.3173 of 2004, C.C.No.3174 of 2004 respectively. Subsequently, the accused had filed petitions in Crl.M.P.No.3688 of 2005 in C.C.No.6712 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3689 of 2005 in C.C.No.6808 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3690 of 2005 in C.C.No.6807 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.6598 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.3172 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3692 of 2005 in C.C.No.3173 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3693 of 2005 in C.C.No.3174 of 2004, respectively, stating that the documents, viz., (i) income tax returns filed by the complainant with all the annexure / details for the year ending 1998 to 1999 and 1999 to 2000 and (ii) the register of chits containing the details of the subscribers name and group of Amaravathi finance and investment for the year ending 1998 to 1999 and 1999 to 2000. AMR 66, 67, 76, 77, 78, 79, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98, AMR 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13 A, AMR, 92A, 93A, 96A, 97A, 98A, 78A, AMR 41A, 41B, 47A, 48A, 49A, AMR 44, 45, 46, 69, 70, 71, 71A, AMR 47 along with the details of security deposits made by the complainant in the name of Registrar of Chits, are necessary to be produced before this Court, as otherwise the accused will not be able to defend her case effectively. Hence, it was prayed to issue summons for the Income Tax Officer, Chennai and Registrar of Chits, Mylapore, Chennai and to produce all the above documents before this Court.
3. The respondent / complainant, in his counter has submitted that the prosecution evidence is completed and P.W.1 cross is partly taken before this Court. It was submitted that the petitioner failed to show how the documents sought for, viz., income tax returns and chit registers are essential for the decision of the above case and no reasoning whatsoever has been given by the petitioner. It was submitted that sweeping and unspecified documents cannot be identified and the petitioner had deliberately avoided to provide details of the documents with a view to delay the proceedings and cause hardship to the respondent. It was submitted that the documents sought to be produced is related to a chit transaction, in which the petitioner accused is a subscriber and the petitioner had not disputed the fact that she is not a subscriber, nor had questioned the validity of the chit transaction. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner on the conduct of the chit, there is a different forum available to the petitioner to agitate the issue and seek appropriate remedy. It was further submitted that this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court had time and again held that the accused is not entitled to seek the production of documents which are statutory to be maintained. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the petitions.
4. The petitions came up for hearing on 12.04.2006 before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides and on perusal of records observed that the respondent / complainant had averred that in the chit transaction of the complainant, the accused stood as security for other chit subscribers and that the other chit subscribers had not been disputed by the accused. The learned Magistrate further opined that the income tax returns and register of chits are public documents and thus the petitioner may apply before the concerned authorities for production of these documents. Hence, the learned Magistrate on observing that it is not necessary to issue summons to the Income Tax Officer and Registrar of Chits to produce all the petition mentioned documents, dismissed the petitions.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitions, the petitioner / accused has preferred the present revisions.
6.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended in his revisions that the learned Judge erred in arriving at a conclusion that the income tax returns and register of chits containing the details of the subscribers name and group of Amaravathi Chits Pvt. Ltd., together with details of security deposits made by the petitioner in the name of Registrar of Chits are public documents and erred in directing the petitioner to apply before the concerned authorities for production of the above documents. It was contended that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that since the petitioner is not in a position to obtain the documents, she was seeking the assistance of the Hon'ble Court to issue summons to the Income Tax Officer and also to the Registrar of Chits or in the alternative to direct the Income Tax Officer and Registrar of Chits to produce the documents mentioned by the petitioner in the petitions filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., but instead the learned Judge had dismissed the petitions. It was contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, if the documents are not produced before the Hon'ble Court as the documents will throw light on the fact of whether the liability is a legally enforceable liability or not. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.3688 of 2005 in C.C.No.6712 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3689 of 2005 in C.C.No.6808 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3690 of 2005 in C.C.No.6807 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.6598 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.3172 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3692 of 2005 in C.C.No.3173 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3693 of 2005 in C.C.No.3174 of 2004, respectively, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
7. The very competent counsel, Mr.B.Divakaran, appearing for the respondent submits that the original case had been levelled against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, since the accused had issued cheque in favour of the complainant and the same was dishonoured on presentation. Therefore, for deciding the limited issue regarding dishonour of cheque, the requirements of the documents, viz., income tax returns and register of chits sought by the accused are not necessary. In order to prolong the main case, the accused had filed the ancillary application before the trial Court, which is creating multiple proceedings. The main case has been pending for more than 9 years, on the file of the learned Magistrate.
8. On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at for dismissing the said petitons. This Court is of the further view that for deciding the dishonour of cheque, the documents sought by the accused are not relevant.
9. In the result, the above revisions are dismissed. Consequently, the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.3688 of 2005 in C.C.No.6712 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3689 of 2005 in C.C.No.6808 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3690 of 2005 in C.C.No.6807 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.6598 of 2003, Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2005 in C.C.No.3172 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3692 of 2005 in C.C.No.3173 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.3693 of 2005 in C.C.No.3174 of 2004, respectively, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 12.04.2006 are confirmed.
05.07.2012 r n s Index : Yes. Internet : Yes. C.S.KARNAN, J r n s To The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Crl.R.C.Nos.798 to 804 of 2006 05.07.2012