C.Rajendran vs V.Prabhakaran

This Criminal Revision has been filed praying to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court), Pattukkottai in Cr.M.P.No.1706 of 2016 in STC.No.25 of 2016 and set aside the order dated 06.01.2017.

This matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.

The petitioner herein is an accused and the respondent herein is the complainant in STC.No.25 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court), Pattukkottai. The said proceedings are initiated by the respondent, on the basis of the complaint against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Sections 200 and 357 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner and the respondent are Advocates.

The case of the respondent is that both the parties are well known to each other. The petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.06.2014 from the respondent and had executed a Pronote in favour of the respondent and while the respondent demanded the said loan, the petitioner issued a cheque, dated 10.06.2015, drawn at Union Bank of India, Tiruchitrambalam Branch for Rs.5,00,000/-, in favour of the respondent. While the respondent deposited the above cheque for collection, the said cheque was dishonored. Then, the respondent issued a Notice, dated 13.08.2015 to the petitioner, who received the same. Subsequently, the petitioner has paid a part amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent on 29.09.2015 and on the same date, the petitioner had issued a cheque, dated 29.09.2015, for the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, drawn at Union Bank of India, Pattukkottai Branch, to the respondent, who again deposited the above cheque in his account at Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Pattukkottai Branch on 22.12.2015, for collection, but the same was returned stating ''funds insufficient'' in the Bank account of the petitioner. Hence, the respondent issued a Notice, dated 22.01.2016, to the petitioner informing the fact of dishonor of cheque and demanding the amount, but the petitioner has not chosen to pay the cheque amount after receipt of the said Notice on 25.01.2016 and hence, a complaint was filed under Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner and the same was taken on file and pending as STC.No.25 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai.

The petitioner / accused entered appearance in the said proceedings and the respondent filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.1706 of 2016, seeking permission to file a letter, dated 29.09.2015, executed by the petitioner to the respondent, which was left out to file at the time of filing the said complaint before the Court and it was allowed after hearing both parties by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai in its order, dated 06.01.2017. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, the petitioner / accused has filed the present Revision, for the aforesaid relief.

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would contend that the impugned letter, dated 29.09.2015 had not been mentioned either in the statutory notice or in the complaint and the complainant produced the said letter / additional documents to fill up the lacuna in this case and all the documents pertaining to the criminal complaint should be furnished at the time of filing private complaint itself and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, has no jurisdiction and there is no specific provision contemplated in Criminal Procedure Code., to receive and mark additional documents at a belated stage and hence, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, refers the decision of Principal Bench of this Court in Dandy Knit Garments & Another Vs. M/s. Subiksha (P) Ltd., reported in (2000 (2) MWN (Cr.) 222) and an unreported Judgment of this Court in Asaithambi Vs. Sasikala made in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.16284 & 16824 of 2011, dated 04.12.2014.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend by filing a copy of the impugned letter, dated 29.09.2015 that there is no bar to receive additional document, which is relevant to the complaint proceedings at any time and also which was left out at the time of filing the complaint before the trial Court.

Perused the materials on record. Heard and considered the rival submissions made by either side.

On perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent, there is no such averments or pleadings in respect of the alleged letter, dated 29.09.2015 by the petitioner / accused in favour of the complainant ie., on the date of issuance of cheque No.061787, for Rs.3,50,000/-, dated 29.09.2015, in favour of the complainant. But, on perusal of the counter statement filed by the accused before the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1706/2016, the petitioner / accused had admitted that he had executed the letter mentioning the date of cheque signed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant believing the words of the complainant, since the complainant is the Senior Advocate, at the end of para 3 of the counter statement.

On perusal of the impugned letter, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has signed with the date 29.09.2015 and has executed the cheque, bearing No.061787, for the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, on the same date. It is not denied that the impugned letter and the petition for reception of documents were filed by the complainant during pendency of the case before the commencement of the trial in the said case. In the interest of justice and also legally there is no bar to receive the impugned admitted letter signed by the petitioner with date 29.09.2015, during pendency of the proceedings.

On perusal of the decisions relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the decisions relied is helpful to the petitioner and are not applicable in the facts of this case. In the first decision reported in (2000 (2) MWN (Cr.)

222) (cited supra) an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., was filed, after closure of evidence on the side of the complainant. In the 2nd decision ie., in Asaithambi ''s case, referred to supra, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., was filed by the complainant, after examination of the accused and the matter was posted for argument. Non-mentioning of the provision of the law is not a fatal for dismissal of that application on merits.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, there can be no interference of the trial Court order in allowing the Cr.M.P.No.1706 of 2016, dated 06.01.2017, by this Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions also stands dismissed and the Interim Stay already granted by this Court stands vacated. The learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Pattukkottai, is directed to dispose the case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report the same to this Registry.