Madras High Court
P.V.Rajendran vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 August, 2017
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.08.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C(MD).No.607 of 2008 and M.P(MD)Nos.3 & 4 of 2008 P.V.Rajendran ... Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruchirappalli. ... Respondent 2.S.Alphones Selvaraj ... Proposed Respondent Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Crl.M.P.5878/2006 in C.C.No.204/2005 dated 25.09.2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur and set aside the same and consequently discharge the petitioner from the charge under Section 403, 418 and 420 IPC in C.C.No.204/2005. !For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraj Sethupathy for M/s.Raj & Pathy ^For 1st Respondent : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran Addl. Public Prosecutor For 2nd Respondent : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy :ORDER
The Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.5878/2006 in C.C.No.204/2005, dated 25.09.2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.
2.The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.204/2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur. He was charged for the offences under Sections 403, 418 and 420 IPC.
3.The case of the prosecution is brief as follows:-
The defacto complainant in this case is the friend of the accused and accused is also a Chairman in the Thuraiyur Co-operative Rural Bank Limited. The defacto complainant and his family members have opened an account in the above said Bank. The accused using his undue influence in the bank and without the knowledge of the defacto complainant's sister, has issued a cheque book on her behalf. Then the defacto complainant's sister has handed over the signed cheque book to the accused and requested him to help their parents, who are residing at Thuraiyur, whenever they need money. After some time, there has some problem between the defacto complainant and the accused and hence, the defacto complainant asked the accused to return the cheques, he refused to do so. Subsequently, using the above cheques the accused filed a complaint against the defacto complainant's sister in C.C.No.4566 of 2002, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.1, Egmore, Chennai-8. Since the petitioner/accused cheated the sister of the defacto complainant and has committed a breach of trust. He has filed a complaint before the respondent police and the same was registered in Cr.No.6/2002 under Sections 420 and 409 of I.P.C. After the investigation, a final report has been filed for the above mentioned charges. When the matter was taken on file in C.C.No.204 of 2005, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for discharging him from the above said charges. The Court below dismissed the discharge petition. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision has been filed.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the materials available on record would reveal that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Even as per the statement of the defacto complainant and his sister, they voluntarily handed over the cheque book to the petitioner and asked him to help their parents.
6.From the statement of the defacto complainant's sister, it is seen that when she closed the accounts in the Co-operative Bank and she has also given an affidavit stating that the cheque book has been lost. Apart from that, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has misused the cheque and withdraw any amount from the bank.
7.Apart from that, when the petitioner filed a complaint against the defacto complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, they have taken a defence that they have not received any cheque book from the Bank, but only closed the accounts. They came to know that someone has received the cheque book now in order to escape from the clutches of law, he has filed the private complaint. Absolutely, there is no prima facie case made out. Against the petitioner and it is totally a abuse of process of law.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that there are material available on record to show that the petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant's sister. When the cheque book has been handed over to the petitioner in trust, he misused the same and filed a false private complaint against the defacto complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. From the materials collected by the Investigating Officer, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Hence a final report has been filed by the respondent police against the petitioner. This Court need not conduct a roving enquiry to find out that the allegations are true or false. Accordingly, the Court below considering the entire material available on record, came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and dismissed the discharge petition and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
9.I have consider rival submission.
10.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the main allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner was a Chairman in a Co-operative Society, and the defacto complainant's sister has an account is the aforesaid bank, and he has issued a cheque book to her. Thereafter, the defacto complainant's sister handed over the entire signed cheques to the accused and asked him to help her parents. Subsequently, there has a problem between the petitioner and the defacto complainant's sister, and she asked him to return the cheque. He refused to do so. Subsequently, using the above cheques, he filed a private complaint against the defacto complainant in C.C.456/2002 and thereby he has committed the offence.
11.But from the perusal of the statement available on the record, it could be seen that the defacto complainant's sister has stated that she has on her own, handed over the signed cheques. Subsequently, when she wanted to close the account, the bank asked the cheque book, she has given statement stating that the cheque book was lost. But there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has misappropriated the money but she has stated that the petitioner has misused the cheque and filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also produced a judgment in the private complaint filed by the petitioner against the defacto complainant's sister. Admittedly, the defacto complainant's sister was acquitted in the said complaint. The defacto complainant's sister has taken a defence that she did not even receive any cheque book from the bank, and while she was closing the account, she was asked to return the cheque. In this case, the defacto complainant has taken two different stands. (i) In the private complaint was filed by the petitioner herein that he has not received any cheque from the petitioner, whereas the complainant come out with a new case that she has handed over the signed cheques and in turn misused by the petitioner/accused thereby he has committed the offence.
13.On a careful perusal of materials, I find some force in the contention of the petitioner that the complaint has been given only in order to escape from the private complaint filed by the petitioner against the defacto complainant. Hence from the perusal of the records, I am also fully satisfied that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The Trial Court without considering the entire materials on record in a proper perspective, dismissed the application.
14.Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the petitioner is discharged from the charges. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur.
.