IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21/01/2003
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
CRL.O.P.NO.392 OF 2003
AND CRL.OP.NOS. 410 and 414 OF 2003
1.K.L.Krishnamurthy .. Petitioner in all the above O.Ps.
2.K.L.Subramanian .. Petitioner in all the above O.Ps.
3.K.K.Ramesh Babu .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No. 414/03
-Vs-
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
E.O.W. II
Sivagangai. .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.392/03
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
E.O.W. II
Dindigul. .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.410/03
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
E.O.W. II
Madurai. .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.NO.414/03
Petitions filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for as stated
below.
For petitioners : Mr. D.Murthy
For respondents : Mr. O.Srinath, G.A.
:O R D E R
For easy reference and for the sake of convenience Criminal
Original Petition Nos. 392, 410 and 414 of 2003 are herein after referred to
as the first, second and the third Criminal Original Petition respectively.
From out of all the above three Criminal Original Petitions,
the first and second Criminal Original petition above have been filed by the
brothers, namely, K.L.Krishnamurthy and K.L.Subramanian and the third Criminal
original petition is filed besides these two persons by another K.K.Ramesh
Babu, who is the son of the first petitioner in the other Criminal Original
Petitions and the respondent in the first Criminal Original petition is State
rep. by The Inspector of Police, E.O.W.II, Sivagangai, the respondent in the
second Criminal Original petition is State rep. by The Inspector of Police,
E.O.W.II, Dindigul and the respondent in the third Criminal Original petition
is State rep. by The Inspector of Police, E.O.W.II, Madurai.
2. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed
generally alleging that on the complaints lodged by one T.S.Kuppusamy
respectively dated 27-05-2002, 26-05-2002 and 25-05-2002 concerned
respectively in the above first, second and third Criminal Original Petition,
three cases have been registered by the respondents, all under Sections 4 06
and 420 of I.P.C. against the petitioners described above as per the
respondents F.I.R.s in its Crime Nos. 1 of 2002, dated 27-05-2002, Crime No.
4 of 2002, dated 26-05-2002 and Crime No. 5 of 2002 , dated 25-05-2002 and it
is only praying to quash all the above cases registered and investigated into
by the respondents, the petitioners have come forward to file all the above
Criminal Original petitions, on grounds such as that the complainant
T.S.Kuppusamy, has alleged in the first case above that he had deposited a sum
of Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 5-8-1996 in the petitioners’ Finance Company, namely,
K.L. Krishnamurthy Finance Company, as a Fixed Deposit for a period of 3
years, promising to pay interest at 24% per annum for the deposit amount, in
so far as the second case above is concerned that he had deposited a sum of
Rs. 85,000/- and Rs.1,15,000/- respectively dated 23-04-1996 and 24-03-1998
in the petitioners’ Finance Company, namely, K.L.Krishnamurthy Finance
Company, as a Fixed Deposit for a period of 3 years, promising to pay interest
at 24% per annum for deposit amount and in so far as the third case above is
concerned that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- dated
16-9-1997 and 20-11-1997 respectively in the petitioners’ Finance Company,
namely, K.L.Krishnamurthy Finance Company, as a Fixed Deposit for a period of
3 years, promising to pay interest at 24% per annum for the deposit amount;
that the accused therein executed the promissory notes in his favour, but
evaded the issuance of deposit receipts under some pretext or the other; that
on the complaints lodged by the complainant, the respondents have registered
the cases in the manner aforementioned under its crime numbers for the offence
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. and have taken up the same for
investigation. Hence, alleging that the complaint has not been lodged on true
facts and circumstances, but on motivated, false and imaginery allegations,
thus giving the colour of criminality for the cases which are civil in nature
and on such grounds, since according to the petitioners the complaints cannot
be maintained before the respondents, particularly under the TNPID Act before
the Special Court they have come forward to file all the above three petitions
praying for quashing the F.I.Rs in the respective Criminal Original petitions
above.
3. During arguments the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners besides analysing the facts and circumstances of the
case as projected in the Original Petitions above would also cite two
judgments, the first one delivered in T.T.ANTONY VS. STATE OF KERALA ((2 001)
6 SUPREME COURT CASES 181), wherein, it is held that “… There can be no
second F.I.R. and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent
information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence
giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Only information about
commission of a cognizable offence which is first entered in station house
diary by officer in charge of the police station can be regarded as F.I.R.
under Section 154. All such subsequent informations will be covered by
Section 162”.
4. In the second judgment cited on behalf of the
petitioners delivered in M/s. KUNSTOCOM ELECTRONICS (I) PVT. LTD., VS. GILT
PACK LIMITED (AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 739) it is held that “the High Court
disposing of the petition with observation that accused shall have right to
raise all grounds at the time of framing of the charge is held not proper on
ground that since raising the very same objections at the time of framing the
charge would practically be an empty formality as the trial Court had already
taken a definite view in the matter”.
5. On the part of the learned Government Advocate on the
Criminal Side, he would submit that a definite case of breach of trust and
cheating has been made out on the face of the F.I.R.s by the complainant in
all the three cases registered by the respondents relating to the above three
criminal Original Petitions and the matters are under investigation and
therefore, no interference by this Court need be necessary and since the
amounts put in fixed deposit have matured for payment, the accused on such
maturity should have paid the amounts as promised, which they failed to do, as
a result of which, the complainant has rightly preferred the complaints before
the respondents and they are duty bound to entertain the complaints and
investigate into and file the charge sheet, in which event, no other question
muchless that they are the cases civil in nature would arise and on such
arguments, the learned Government Advocate would pray for dismissing of the
Criminal Original Petitions.
6. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard
to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners’ and the learned Government Advocate on
the Criminal Side contra what comes to be known is that in the petitioners’
Finance Company, the complainant before the respondents, namely T.S.Kuppusamy
has deposited amounts as afore extracted in three fixed deposits for three
years and on attaining the maturity, after three years the petitioners have
failed to repay the amounts, with interest at 24% per annum as promised at the
time of investment and hence, he has come forward to lodge criminal complaints
against the petitioners before the respondents for penal action and on
intimation of the complaints, the respondents have registered cases in their
crime numbers against the petitioners for the commission of offence punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. and it is against registering of these
cases as per their crime Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of 2002, the petitioners have come
forward to file the above Criminal Original Petitions praying to quash the
same.
7. There seems to be nothing wrong on the part of the
complainant in the criminal case registered by the respondents to have
resorted to lodge the complaints on the failure of the petitioners to repay
the sums deposited with them in their Finance Company, which are all admitted
facts. But the only plea that is taken on the part of the petitioners is that
the subject matters are civil in nature and they cannot lie before the
respondents for investigation.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners would also cite the above two judgments, the prepositions of which
held therein are general in nature and they cannot directly become applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. There does not seem to be
any ambiguity or irregularity in the registration of the case filed by the
respondents, particularly for commission of offence by the petitioners under
Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. and hence, this Court does not find any valid or
tangible reason to cause interference into the registration of the cases or
the investigation taken up on the part of the respondents and in these
circumstances the only course open for this Court is to refrain from causing
any interference into the case registered and investigated into in the manner
stated above and hence, the following judgment.
In result,
i.the above Criminal Original Petitions are without merit and the same are
dismissed;
ii.consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos. 171, 174 and 177 of 2003 are also dismissed.
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
paa
To
1. State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
E.O.W. II
Sivagangai.
2. State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
E.O.W. II
Dindigul.
3. State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
E.O.W. II
Madurai.
4. The Public Prosecutor High Court
Madras.
((SCO LYRIX 6.1
))