D. Marimuthu vs S. Chandrasekaran

S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioner is a third party to the proceedings, who is an authorised representative of M/s.Mepco Industries Limited.

By means of a resolution passed in the Board Meeting on 30.06.2006, he was authorised to take all necessary legal steps for filing petition in the

Court seeking action for the criminal offences committed by one Chandrasekaran, Proprietor, Profile Industrial Diamond Tools, Uttukuli, Erode

District, who had filed false documents in the Court and misled the Court to obtain a judgment in his favour. He filed an application in I.A. No. 860

of 2006 in O.S. No. 198 of 2002 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, praying the Court to make a preliminary enquiry, record

a finding regarding the offence committed by the respondent, make a complaint in writing and send it to the nearest Magistrate of the First Class

having jurisdiction to deal with the respondent according to law.

In the affidavit, he has alleged that Exs.B.14 to B.17 were copies of the letters addressed to the plaintiff and since P.W.2 admitted them while

he was in the witness box, they were marked. While the matter stood thus, O.S. No. 198 of 2002 was dismissed by the trial Court and an appeal

in A.S. No. 37 of 2005 was preferred before the District Court, Madurai, in which a petition in I.A. No. 8 of 2006 for the identical relief u/s 193

Cr.P.C. for registration of criminal case against the defendant was sought for and the said petition was heard along with the appeal and the same

was disposed of by the learned District Judge. Hence, the petition has to be allowed.

In the counter filed by the respondent, the averments in the affidavits were denied in detail. It is stated that it was judiciously adjudicated by the

District Court and the claim of the petitioner company was negatived and the application was dismissed with costs. Once the trial Court decided

the matter on merits and the appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and when the matter is pending before the High Court, the

present application is not maintainable before the trial Court and that the petitioner''s company did not choose to question the order of the District

Court. It is further alleged that misunderstandings arose between this respondent and the petitioner company and the dealings were snapped.

Enraged on that, the petitioner company manipulated accounts, created a false claim and foisted the original suit and the trial Court found that the

claim of the petitioner company is wrong and the suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the company was also dismissed. It is pertinent to

note that the petitioner company raised the same issue before the appellate Court in I.A. No. 8 of 2006 and the District Court found the allegation

of the petitioner company was a wrong one and observed that the documents, subsequently produced by the petitioner company are suspicious

and thus dismissed the claim of the of the petitioner. The present application is barred by principles of res judicata. It is further contended that the

petitioner is not a competent person to file the application. The present application is a clear abuse of process of Court. Hence, this petition has to

be dismissed.

The learned I Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai has dismissed the application by observing that in view of the findings made in I.A. No. 8 of 2006

and A.S. No. 37 of 2005 by the District Court, the circumstances of the matter could not be further discussed by the trial Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.Patturajan would strenuously contend that the respondent having fabricated the documents

Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.17, he is liable for criminal prosecution for which the trial Court itself has to initiate proceedings after making a preliminary

enquiry and should record a finding. It is no doubt true that the trial Court has to perform the statutory obligations ordained by law. But he says

that the plaintiff has preferred a Second Appeal before this Court and the same is pending. Hence, the findings of the trial Court and the appellate

Court are not conclusive with regard to the records and exhibits produced in the suit. Directing the trial Court to perform its statutory duties u/s

193 IPC would definitely be a premature one. After this Court finally decides the matter, passing of such direction could be considered.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner garners support from the decision of the Apex Court reported in M.S. Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana and

Another, wherein Their Lordships have observed that relating to perjury and fabricating false records before the Court, the statutory procedure

provided under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC ought to be followed.

In K. Rajagopala Rao Vs. P. Radhakrishna Murthy, a learned Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that on the allegation of fabrication

of document in a proceeding before the Court, irrespective of the nature of the proceedings, the Court is entitled to hold enquiry and record finding

u/s 340 of Cr.P.C. For identical proposition, he also cites the following authorities:

(i) Nimmakanyala Audi Narrayanammam Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,

(ii) K. Rajagopala Rao Vs. P. Radhakrishna Murthy,

(iii) S.T. Shanmugesan Vs. K. Chengalvaraya Mudaliar and Others,

(iv) 1999 (4) Crimes 297 (SC) M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and Anr.

(v) 2002 Cri. L.J.624 Hridayangshu Bhattacharjee v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

(vi) 2001 Cri. lj1188

(vii) R.K. Chawla and Another Vs. Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another, .

The learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the application during the pendency of the

Second Appeal before this Court. The request u/s 195 IPC and 340 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable.

This Court sees no reason in the prayer contained in the petition for the reason that the Second Appeal is pending before this Court. Unless it is

disposed of and a favourable judgment is obtained in favour of the petitioner, he could not make such a prayer, which is a premature one. The

merits of the documents are yet to be reappreciated in the Second Appeal. Even though the reasoning of the Court below is not proper, its

conclusion that the petition is liable to be dismissed, deserves to be confirmed. This civil revision petition is devoid of merits and it suffers dismissal.

In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs. The petitioner is at liberty to revive his

application under provisions mentioned therein after the disposal of the Second Appeal by this Court, if the circumstances so warranted.