A.P. Thirumalaisamy vs Smt. Bangarammal and Others

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Mr. A. P. Thirumalaisamy, the petitioner herein as against the impugned order dismissing his private complaint

u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has filed this revision.

Facts are these : On 2-5-1990 there was an agreement between the petitioner herein/complainant and the first respondent. By virtue of this

agreement, the first respondent agreed to purchase the property which belonged to the petitioner for the sale consideration of Rs, 3,10,000/-. On

the date of agreement, an advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to the complainant. It was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.

2,10,000/- was to be paid within three months. However, within three months, the first respondent was not able to pay the balance amount and

she had paid only Rs. 80,000/- on 21-8-90 and on the said date further time was sought.

In the year 1994, the first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 286 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Udumalpet for the relief of specific

performance as against the complainant, as if the entire sale consideration has been paid by means of the required documents.

The complainant, the petitioner herein at this stage filed a complaint on 14-8-1985 alleging that the first respondent with the help of respondents

2 to 4 fabricated the documents by forging the signature of the complainant, as if the entire amount has been paid to the complainant and then they

filed a suit seeking for a false claim, This complaint was filed for the offences under Sections 467, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code before

the Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet after taking sworn statement dismissed the complaint, on the ground that there is no material as on

date to establish that the documents filed before the Civil Court were forged ones and that the parties will have to work out the remedies only in

the Civil Court. Aggrieved over this order, the complainant, the petitioner herein has preferred this revision.

Mr. B. Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit while challenging the impugned order that the order passed u/s 203 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure is not in consonance with the principles enunciated by this Court as well as the Apex Court in view of the fact that the

lower Court has exceeded its limit by appreciating the truth or otherwise contained in the complaint.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I scrutinised the records as well as the impugned

order.

No doubt it is true that some of the observations made in the impugned order would go to show that there is an appreciation and evaluation of

the materials with reference to the averments made in the complaint and in the sworn statement and this is not permissible under law. As a matter of

fact it is observed that the complaint had been filed by the complainant against the respondents out of ulterior motive-in order to take revenge.

This observation in my view is unwarranted as there is no material placed before the Court as on date. However, I shall point out that the order:

of dismissing the private complaint u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be sustained in some other ground. The accusation online

complaint is that the accused had forged the document and filed a suit in the Civil Court. Admittedly, the complainant has not come forward before

the criminal Court with the said documents after collecting the material to show that the said documents were forged. It is also not in dispute that

those documents are in the custody of the Civil Court. The issue before the civil Court is whether the plaintiff, the first respondent herein, was

.entitled to the relief of specific performance on the basis of those documents. The defendant, in the said suit has to establish his defence stating that

the plaintiff is not entitled to the said relief since those documents were not genuine ones. Such being the situation, the main issue is whether the said

document is a forged one or not is to be decided in the civil Court, after considering the materials placed by the respective parties before the said

Court.

In the instant case, it is clearly seen that without those materials, the complainant has approached the criminal Court by filing a private

complaint for the offences under Sections 467, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. This, in my view is not permissible under law and the same

is premature. So, on this ground, the impugned order could be sustained, though I do not accept the grounds of dismissal as mentioned in the

impugned order.

In the result, this revision is dismissed.