Madras High Court
Mohankumar vs / on 12 September, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:12.09.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.No.11186 of 2024
1.Mohankumar
2.Bhavikha Jain .. Petitioners
/versus/
1.The State rep.by The Inspector of Police,
CCB-I, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
(Crime No.172/2023)
2.T.Ranganathan .. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of
BNSS to call for the entire records pertaining to the Crime No.172 of
2023 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners :Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For R1 :Mr.S.Udaya Kumar
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 :Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.K.Kousik
-----
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2024
ORDER
It is the case where a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has been taken cognizance at the instance of the first petitioner herein as against the second respondent and the same is pending in C.C.No.3356 of 2020 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.1, Allikulam. The very same cheque is the subject matter of the complaint given by the second respondent as against the petitioners herein alleging that the said cheque was stolen and forged by the first petitioner for initiating a false complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved the present Original Petition is filed to quash the Crime No. 172 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Vepery,Chennai registered at the instance of the second respondent.
2. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, for the past three years, the second respondent who is an accused in C.C.No.3356 of 2020 pleading that the cheque, which was given several years ago been misused and also had categorically denied liability but said nothing about forgery or theft of the document. All of a 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2024 sudden, he has invented a story of theft and forgery and instituted the complaint which has been registered in Crime No.172 of 2023. Since the complaint is with suppression of material fact, the same has to be quashed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that the fact of theft and forgery came to notice only after verifying the cheque marked in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act, 1881. Prior to that, the defacto complainant was under the impression that the first petitioner has used one of the several cheques issued to him during the course of money transaction between him and the first petitioner during the year 2008- 2010. The knowledge of forgery and theft came only in the year 2023, after verying the original cheque filed in the 138 of NI Act complaint pending in C.C.No.3356 of 2020 and therefore, the complaint was filed. Pursuant to the complaint original cheque was sent to Laboratory for verification and it is found that the signature found in the cheque is forged and therefore independently the criminal complaint has to be investigated for forgery and other offence.
3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2024
4. After hearing the counsels on either side and on perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that the subject matter of the dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent is a cheque which is already been seized of in a complaint registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which is pending. Dehors of the defence taken by the accused in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881, if there is a material surfaces later that the cheque filed in support of the complaint itself is forged document, the aggrieved party as well as the Court not denuded of their right or power to proceed against the person, who has fabricated the document for the purpose of securing the conviction.
5. Therefore, having now obtained an expert opinion regarding the disputed cheque and the report is well within the knowledge of the Judicial Magistrate, who is conducting the trial of private complaint initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is always open to the parties as well as the Court itself to take suo moto action if ultimately found the cheque which is relied upon for prosecuting the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2024 second respondent herein is a forged document. The parties concerned can very well lead evidence regarding the genuinity of the cheque or otherwise. It is open to the Judicial Magistrate to get second opinion about the signature, if required.
6. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.09.2024 Index:yes/no Neutral citation:yes/no ari To
1.The Inspector of Police,CCB-I, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2024 Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.11186 of 2024 12.09.2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis