Madras High Court
A.Mohammed Munthasir vs The Inspector Of Police on 10 December, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19011 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.12815 and 12816 of 2022
A.Mohammed Munthasir ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Pudukkottai Town Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
Crime No. 12 of 2018.
2. M.Mohammed Farook ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the
Impugned charge sheet in C.C No. 01 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.I, Pudukkottai District in Crime No. 12 of 2018
dated 09.01.2018 u/s 120B, 406, 420, 294(b), 506(1), 467, 468, 471 of
IPC on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal
insofar as the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.S.Mohammed Rafi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R1
Mr.J.Nandhakumar for R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai District.
2.The second respondent gave a complaint to the first respondent police stating that he was partner in a firm called as “Royal India Motor Company”. In this firm, initially his father was a partner and on his demise, the second respondent joined as a partner. On 30.09.2016, a decision was taken to relieve the defacto complainant from the partnership firm and it was agreed that a sum of Rs.84,70,000/- will be paid in favour of the defacto complainant towards his share. The defacto complainant also agreed to receive this amount and to get relieved from the partnership firm. A document dated 10.12.2016 was prepared whereby the relieving of the defacto complainant from the partnership firm was incorporated. By virtue of this document, two cheques were 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022 given to the second respondent. One cheque for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and another cheque for a sum of Rs.19,70,000/-. Insofar as the first cheque is concerned, it was cleared and this amount was received by the second respondent and there is no dispute regarding the same. Insofar as the second cheque for a sum of Rs.19,70,000/-, the second respondent was made to believe that the cheque will be handed over immediately after the document is registered. Believing the same, the document was also registered and the second respondent was relieved from the partnership firm. However, subsequently the accused persons issued a notice to the bank to stop the payment of the cheque that was handed over in favour of the second respondent. It is under these circumstances, the complaint came to be given by the second respondent.
3.The first respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No. 12 of 2018. On completion of investigation, a police report was filed against three named accused persons for offences under Sections 120(b), 406, 420, 294(b), 506(i), 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Aggrieved by the proceedings pending before the Court below, A3 has filed the present quash petition.
3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022
4.It was brought to the notice of this Court that A1 died during the pendency of the proceedings and as of now, the proceedings are pending only as against A2 and A3.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the third respondent.
6.The main issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature and that the second respondent has attempted to give it a criminal colour. The learned counsel submitted that there was a valid reason for giving the stop payment letter to the bank and that apart, the second respondent has also filed a suit in O.S.No.67 of 2018 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,70,000/- as against the firm and its partners and the same is pending. Apart from that, the second respondent has also filed a suit for permanent injunction and the same is pending in O.S.No.54 of 2018. A1 has also filed a suit against the defacto complainant in O.S.No.34 of 2018 for 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022 recovery of a sum of Rs,50,00,000/- and in view of the same, it was contended that the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons is a abuse of process of law which requires the interference of this Court.
7.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that already 7 witnesses have been examined in this case out of 15 witnesses and at this stage, this quash petition should not be entertained and the parties must be relegated to the Court below to put forth their defense in the pending case. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that on the prima facie materials available before this Court, it is clearly seen that the second respondent has been cheated by the other partners.
8.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent submitted that the suit filed before the civil Court is only for recovery of money since the same cannot be recovered from the accused persons in the criminal proceedings. However, on the same set of facts, if an offence is made out, there is absolutely no bar for the second 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022 respondent to prosecute a criminal case also. The learned counsel further submitted that the dishonest intention on the part of the accused persons is quite apparent from the fact that the second respondent was made to sign the relinquishment deed and later, the accused persons gave stop payment instructions to the bank and thereby deprived the second respondent from receiving a sum of Rs.19,70,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that there are no merits in this case and that this quash petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
9.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
10.The admitted case is that the second respondent was inducted as a partner in the firm after the demise of his father. At one point of time in the year 2016, a decision was taken whereby the second respondent agreed to move out of the partnership firm. At that point of time, the share of the second respondent was determined and it was quantified as Rs.84,70,000/-. The second respondent agreed to receive this amount and move out of the partnership firm. The relinquishment 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022 deed was also prepared and in that document, the particulars of the amount that is payable to the second respondent was also mentioned. There is a specific mention of two cheques that were payable in favour of the second respondent. One cheque is for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and the other cheque was for a sum of Rs.19,70,000/-. Insofar as the first cheque is concerned, this amount has been received by the second respondent and there is no dispute regarding the same. The only dispute is with regard to the second cheque for a sum of Rs.19,70,000/-. This cheque was mentioned in the relinquishment deed and this relinquishment deed was also registered before the Sub-Registrar Office. However, subsequently, the accused persons gave a stop payment instruction to the bank. That has given rise to the criminal case launched by the second respondent.
11.Per contra, the second respondent has stated that he was made to sign the relinquishment deed and was given an impression that the entire amount towards his share will be settled and whereas, only a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was settled and insofar as the balance amount of Rs.19,70,000/-, stop payment instructions was given and as a result, this 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022 amount was not paid to the second respondent.
12.The justification given by the accused persons is that after the relinquishment deed was executed, the second respondent filed income tax returns and it was seen that there was a lot of discrepancy and hence, it was decided to issue stop payment instructions to the bank.
13.The reasons that have been assigned on both sides are purely a question of fact. At this juncture, it is relevant to make it clear that the same set of facts can give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings. There is no bar in law for a person to institute both civil and criminal proceedings if ultimately the same set of facts also constitutes an offence. The only thing to be seen is as to whether the criminal proceedings that has been initiated is an abuse of process of law and whether a party has attempted to give a purely civil dispute, a criminal colour.
14.This Court had the advantage of going through the deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.6. Normally, when the trial commences, this 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022 Court relegates the parties to the trial Court and to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. This refusal to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is only by way of a self-restraint that a Court imposes on itself and there is no absolute bar for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. even in a case where the trial has commenced.
15.Having held so, on going through the materials placed before this Court and the evidence rendered by the second respondent and the documents relied upon, prima facie, this Court finds that the second respondent has in fact signed the relinquishment deed on the understanding that he will receive a total amount of Rs.84,70,000/-. However, what was received was only Rs.50,00,000/- and for the balance amount of Rs.19,70,000/-, the cheque that was given in favour of the second respondent was not able to be presented since the accused persons had issued stop payment instruction. Why such an instruction was issued by the accused persons is not something to be gone into in the quash petition. For the present, while dealing with the quash petition, the Court must only see if on the materials available, there is a ground to 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022 proceed further with the case. The specific stand of the second respondent is that such stop payment instruction issued by the accused persons is clearly with an intent to cheat the second respondent and to deprive him of that amount after having relieved the second respondent from the partnership firm. To that extent, it is a triable issue before the Court below.
16.This Court take into consideration not only the materials placed but also the fact that already 7 witnesses have been examined in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below and it is left open to the parties to raise all the grounds before the Court below and the same will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
17.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and there shall be a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukottai, to dispose of C.C.No.1 of 2019 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner has not chosen to cross examine even a single witness in this case even 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022 though seven witnesses have been examined. Therefore, the petitioner will file an appropriate application to recall the witnesses and the same will be allowed by the Court below and the petitioner will cross examine those witnesses on the same day of their appearance. It is also made clear that any observations made in this order will not have any bearing in the Court below dealing with the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.12.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PKN
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Pudukkottai Town Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
PKN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19011 of 2022
Dated: 10.12.2024
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis