V. Kumaresan vs Sivasubramania Marthandan

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—This matter has been listed today for admission.

The complainant in C.C. No. 326 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar is the petitioner in the criminal revision case. He initially filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., obtained an order from the said Magistrate for referring his complaint to the police for registration of a case and investigation. Accordingly, a case was registered in crime No. 27 of 2011 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar. After investigation, a final report was submitted for the closure of the said case as ''Mistake of Fact''. Thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar, with a view that the said Judicial Magistrate would take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint and initiate prosecution against the respondents 1 to 3 herein.

The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar took the said complaint on file as Cr.M.P. No. 9655 of 2012, recorded sworn statement of the revision petitioner/complainant and following the procedure contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C., he took cognizance of the case converting the said criminal miscellaneous petition into a calender case assigning C.C. No. 326 of 2012. However, as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate postponed the issue of process against the persons shown to be accused therein and inquired into the matter himself by examining the witnesses produced by the revision petitioner/complainant.

After the completion of the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar considered the statements given on oath by the revision petitioner/complainant and the witnesses produced by him and also the statements recorded during the enquiry contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and formed an opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for proceedings against the respondents 1 to 3/accused. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 13.06.2014, dismissed the above said complaint of the revision petitioner/complainant under Section 202 Cr.P.C. As against the said order, the present revision has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C.

Upon hearing the submissions made by Ms. G. Dhanalakshmi, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the criminal revision case and after perusing the certified copy of the impugned order and the copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error, defect or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., capable of being interfered with by this Court in exercising of its power of revision, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar has assigned elaborate and unassailable reasons for arriving at the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents 1 to 3 herein/accused and that the present criminal revision case deserves dismissal at the threshold.

The petitioner, in the criminal revision case, faced prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in S.T.C. No. 1103 of 2007 on the file of the same trial Court, instituted on the complaint of the first respondent herein. The cheque bounce case ended in conviction and the appeal therefrom is pending on the file of the Sessions Court. After having suffered a conviction and during the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner chose to file a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereby made the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar to refer the same to the police for registration of a case and investigation.

The allegations made in the complaint are to the effect that the third respondent obtained a bank loan for which the petitioner stood as guarantor; that in respect of the said transaction, five blank cheques were obtained by the third respondent from the petitioner for the purpose of availing the loan from the bank and that subsequently, the first respondent seems to have stolen one such cheque bearing No. 165651, filled up the same in his name and instituted a criminal case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The said attempt made by the revision petitioner seems to be an attempt to initiate a parallel proceeding to challenge the verdict of the competent criminal Court punishing him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

Moreover, the initial attempt made by the revision petitioner to have a case registered based on the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate forwarding his complaint to the police and launching a prosecution on a police report ended in a failure, since the police, after investigation, filed a referred charge sheet. Thereafter, the second attempt was made by the petitioner by preferring the private complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate, this time, followed the procedure contemplated for taking cognizance of the case on private complaint and took cognizance of the case. However, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judicial Magistrate deferred issuance of process to the respondents 1 to 3 herein/accused in the said case instituted on private complaint and inquired into the matter. After completion of the inquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate, as contemplated under Section 203 Cr.P.C., considered the complaint, sworn statements of the complaint and the witnesses and come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding with the case against the respondents 1 to 3 herein/accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate has arrived at the said conclusion assigning unassailable reasons, which are shown in the above said observation made by this Court. This Court does not find any defect or infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar. The attempt made by the petitioner in the criminal case can even be stated to be an attempted of abuse of process of Court.

For all the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the revision is not only devoid of merits and the same does not even deserve admission and that the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.