Muthupandiyammal, K. Kannan and P. Premkumar vs A. Thangadurai

C.S. Karnan, J.—The revision Petitioners/accused have filed a discharge petition in Cr. M.P. No. 307 of 2010 for discharge them in C.C.

No. 368 of 2009, before the learned Magistrate, Nilakottai, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, this revision has been filed

to set aside the dismissal order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 307 of 2010 dated 17.02.2006.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint u/s 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the alleged offence u/s 420 of the Indian

Penal Code, stating that the accused are field workers to collect the money from the women self help organization. After such collection the money

is to be remitted into the bank. Instead of remitting this money into the bank the accused mis-appropriated the collected funds, hence, the

complainant filed this complaint.

The revision Petitioners have stated that the said complaint in C.C. No. 358 of 2009 is not sustainable. In the said complaint there was no date,

no quantum of amount have not been mentioned. There was no sufficient evidence that the accused cheated the complainant. Documents 3, 6 & 9

were filed along with the complainant which are self serving documents. As such the complaint is a misconceived one, hence the accused filed the

discharge petition to discharge from the criminal proceedings.

The complainant has stated that he has narrated the entire facts before the learned Magistrate by way of deposition besides 17 witnesses have

been mentioned, documentary evidence also filed along with the complaint. In the said criminal case witnesses were examined, documents were

marked, now this case is in a partly heard stage. The case posted for cross examination of the witnesses and at this stage the discharge petition is

tantamounts to multiple proceedings.

After hearing both sides the learned Magistrate dismissed the discharged petition on 17.02.2010. Aggrieved by this order the criminal revision

petition filed by the complainant.

The learned Counsel for the accused argued that there was no sufficient documentary evidence that the accused collected huge sums of money

from the women self help organization further no material evidence that the complainant as the director of the Resource Development Centre.

Further there is no evidence that the complainant is the employer and the accused is the employee. Hence, the learned Counsel prays to allow the

above criminal revision petition.

The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant entered into the witness box and rendered evidence and also marked

several documents including 17 witnesses.

The case is in a partly heard stage. Learned Magistrate has taken the case on his file after prima facie case being made out. Therefore, the

learned Counsel prays to dismiss the revision petition. Support his case the learned Counsel submitted the citations in State of Bihar Vs. Baidnath

Prasad @ Baidyanath Shah and Another, , in Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr, and in Ratilal Bhanji v. State of Maharashtra reported in

AIR 1979 SC 94.

The learned Counsels on either sides have fairly admitted that the case now in partly heard stage, further the learned Counsels jointly suggested

to dispose the complaint within a stipulated period.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advances by the learned Counsels, findings of the learned Magistrate,

Nilakottai, this Court is of the view that there is no discrepancy in the said order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 307 of 2010 dated 17.02.2010. As per

the learned Counsel''s suggestion, this Court hereby directs the learned Magistrate to dispose the complaint in C.C. No. 358 of 2009 within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

In the result, the above Criminal Revision Petition No. 211 of 2010 is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 307 of

2007 dated 17.02.2010 is confirmed. The connected M.P. is closed.