{"id":33973,"date":"2002-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002"},"modified":"2018-05-20T22:34:01","modified_gmt":"2018-05-20T17:04:01","slug":"dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 11\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN\n\nCrl.O.P.No.9501 of 2002\nand\nCrl.M.P.No.4392 and 7880 of 2002\n\n1. Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan\n2. Dr.K.P.Natarajan                     .....                   Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\nM.Lathamageswari                       .....                   Respondent\n\n\n        Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 Crl.P.C.  for quash\nas stated therein.\n\n!For Petitioners        :  Mr.R.Subramanian\n\n^For Respondent         :  Mr.P.Selvaraj\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
        The petitioners herein who are accused in C.C.No.3839 of 2002  on  the
\nfile    of  the  Additional  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate’s  Court, Egmore,
\nChennai have filed this petition under  sec.482  Cr.P.C.    to  call  for  the
\nrecords and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Respondent herein has filed a private complaint in C.C.No.3839 of
\n2002 against the petitioners for the alleged offences under sections 465, 468,
\n470, 419, 420 read with 34 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Learned counsel Mr.R.Subramanian  appearing  for  the  petitioners
\nsubmitted as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        The first  petitioner  purchased  a plot measuring 2472 sq.ft.  In Sri
\nVenkateswara Nagar, Korattur Village, Chengai District  in  the  name  of  his
\nminor  son Kumaragururajan on 15.2.1996 under a registered document No.465\/96.
\nThe said land originally belonged to one Damodaran who in turn sold it to  one
\nLatha Maheswari  under  sale  deed dated 19.6.199 2.  The said Latha Maheswari
\nhas executed a registered deed of power of attorney in favour  of  the  second
\npetitioner on 18.1.1996.  By virtue of the said deed of power of attorney, the
\nsecond  petitioner has sold the said plot to the first petitioner’s minor son.
\nEversince the date of purchase, the first petitioner is in possession  of  the
\nsaid plot.   The respondent herein, taking advantage of similarity in her name
\nfalsely claimed the same as her property.    The  respondent  herein  filed  a
\ncomplaint  in  M.P.No.4443  of  1997 before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s
\nCourt, Chennai against the petitioners for the offences  under  sec.465,  468,
\n470,  419  and  430  IPC  which  was  forwarded under sec.156(3) Cr.P.C to the
\npolice.  The police has registered a  case  in  Crime  No.66  of  1998,  after
\ninvestigation referred  it  as  mistake  of  fact.    Suppressing the same the
\nrespondent filed Crl.O.P.No.14527 of 2001 before this court for a direction to
\nthe police to investigate the matter.  This court directed the police to serve
\na copy of the referred notice to enable her to approach the concerned court by
\nway of private complaint.  In the above said  Crl.O.P.No.14527  of  2001,  the
\npetitioners  were not arrayed as respondents, hence, they could not brought to
\nthe notice of this court all the facts.  Taking advantage of the order  passed
\nby  this  court,  the  respondent  has  filed  the above said C.C., before the
\nAdditional  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate   Court,   Egmore   with   similar
\nallegations.  The respondent has also preferred O.S.No.1840 of 1998 before the
\nCity  Civil  Court, Madras against the petitioners herein and as she felt that
\nno substance in her suit, she has preferred the said  private  complaint  made
\nuse of  the order of this court to blackmail the petitioners.  The petitioners
\nare leading and reputed medical  practitioners.    The  private  complaint  is
\nvitiated as  the earlier complaint was closed as mistake of fact.  The learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) ALPIC FINANCE LTD.  v.    P.SADASIVAN<\/a>  ((2001)  3  SCC  513)  wherein  the
\nHonourable Supreme Court has held in para 5 that
\n“Contours of  the  power  under  section 482 Cr.P.C.  Have been explained in a
\nseries of decisions by this Court.  In  Nagawwa  V.    Veeranna  Shivalingappa
\nKonjalgi<\/a>  it  was  held  that the Magistrate while issuing process against the
\naccused should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations in the complaint,
\nif proved, would ultimately end in a conviction of the accused.  It  was  held
\nthat  the  order  of  Magistrate  issuing process against the accused could be
\nquashed under the following circumstances:\n<\/p>\n
        “(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements  of
\nthe  witnesses  recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make
\nout absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not  disclose
\nthe essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
\n(2)  Where  the  allegations  made  in  the  complaint are patently absurd and
\ninherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever  reach  a  conclusion
\nthat there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
\n(3)  Where  the  discretion  exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is
\ncapricious and arbitrary having  been  based  either  on  no  evidence  or  on
\nmaterials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
\n(4)  Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want
\nof sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and  the
\nlike.”\n<\/p>\n
In  the  above case, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that when complaint
\nand statement of witnesses taken at their face value made out no case the same
\ncould be quashed.  And further held that merely because remedy by way of civil
\nsuit is available is not an impediment in  maintaining  a  criminal  complaint
\nprovided the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence alleged.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) MAJOR SINGH  v.   STATE OF PUNJAB (1986 CRI.L.J.  303) wherein the Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court has held in para 7 that
\n“Notice of the petition was issued n  this  case  tot  he  respondentState  of
\nPunjab,  and  the  learned  counsel  for  both  the parties have addressed the
\narguments at considerable length.  Obviously, the only point  which  fals  for
\nconsideration  is,  as  to  whether the criminal court which was seized of the
\ncase against the petitioners and which had framed a Charge Sheet against  them
\nfor  various  offences  relating  to  acts of impersonation, forgery etc., can
\nproceed with the case, in pite of the final three-tier verdict  of  the  civil
\ncourts,  culminating  with  the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal by this
\ncourt, on the very points which are the subject matter of the charge Sheet  in
\nthe criminal  case.    In  this  behalf  Mr.P.C.Mehta, learned counsel for the
\npetitioners has placed strong reliance on Karamchand Ganga Parshad V.    Union
\nof India  AIR<\/a>  1971 SC 1244:(1971 Cri.  LJ 1072), wherein it was observed that
\n“It is a well established principle of law that the  decisions  of  the  Civil
\nCourts are binding ont he criminal Courts.  The converse is not true.” In this
\ncase,  a  Division  Bench  of  Delhi  High court after elaborately hearing the
\narguments in a writ petition under Art.22 6  of  the  Constitution  of  India,
\nrejected  the Writ Petition on the sole ground of that in view of the pendency
\nof the criminal proceedings before some Courts, it would be inappropriate  for
\nthe  High Court to pronounce on the questions arising for decision in the Writ
\nPetition.  Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the High  Court  had
\nseriously erred  in  coming  to this conclusion.  The appeals were, therefore,
\nallowed by the Supreme Court and the cases were remitted to  the  High  Court,
\nfor disposal on merits, with observations which have already been noticed.”
\nIn  the  above  case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when the
\ncivil proceedings ended in favour of accused on very points which were subject
\nmatter of charge sheet in criminal case, continuance of  criminal  proceedings
\nis abuse of process of court.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) GOPALAKRISHNA  MENON  v.    D.RAJA  REDDY (AIR<\/a> 1983 SC 1053) wherein the
\nHonourable Apex Court has held in para 7 that
\n“In view of what we have said above, the prosecution in the  instant  case  on
\nthe  basis  of  a private complaint and in the absence of a complaint from the
\nappropriate  civil  court  where  the  alleged  fraudulent  receipt  has  been
\nproduced, would  not  be  sustainable.    As  we  are  of the view that if the
\nprosecution is allowed to continue serious prejudice would be  caused  to  the
\nappellants  and  they  would be called upon to face a trial which would not be
\nsustainable, we allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court
\nand quash the complaint case filed against the appellants.”
\nIn the above case, the  Honourable  Apex  Court  has  held  that  in  case  no
\ncomplaint  by court in which fraudulent money receipt is produced, prosecution
\nat the instance of opposite party is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   Learned  counsel  Mr.P.Selvaraj  appearing  for  the   respondent
\nsubmitted as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        The petitioners herein, in order to misappropriate the property of the
\nrespondent, has created two documents viz., deed of power of attorney and sale
\ndeed by  forging  the  respondent’s  signature and also by impersonation.  The
\nrespondent has filed a private  complaint  on  15.12  .1997  before  the  XIII
\nMetropolitan  Magistrate,  Egmore,  Chennai against the petitioners herein and
\nthe learned Magistrate, after  perusing  the  complaint,  directed  the  Crime
\nBranch to  investigate  the matter under sec.156(3) Cr.P.C.  On 19.1.1998, the
\nsaid complaint was registered in Crime No.66\/98 for  offences  under  sec.465,
\n468,  470,  419,  429  read  with  34 IPC, but, no investigation has been done
\ninspite of several request made  by  the  respondent.    In  the  result,  the
\nrespondent filed  petition  under  sec.482  Cr.P.C.    in O.P.No.14527 of 2001
\nbefore this court and this  court,  after  verifying  the  necessary  records,
\ndirected  the  police to serve a copy of the referred notice on the respondent
\nto enable her to work out her remedy by approaching the concerned court by way
\nof private complaint against the petitioners herein.  The  respondent  is  the
\nowner  of  the property in dispute and she never executed any deed of power of
\nattorney to the second petitioner herein nor authorised him to execute a  sale
\ndeed  and  the  petitioners  by  impersonation  created  the  deed of power of
\nattorney with the intention to misappropriate the property.  In order to  seek
\nthe remedy available under civil law, the respondent filed O.S.No.1840 of 1998
\nto declare that the sale deed and deed of power of attorney which were created
\nfraudulently are null and void and for other remedies.  The petitioners herein
\nhave  not  made  out  any  valid  ground  to  quash the complaint filed by the
\nrespondent and prayed for dismissal of the  present  petition.    The  learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) KAMALADEVI  AGARWAL  v.   STATE OF WEST BENGAL<\/a> (2001 AIR SCW 4292) wherein
\nthe Honourable Supreme Court has held in para 17 that
\n“…  Criminal cases  have  to  be  proceeded  with  in  accordance  with  the
\nprocedure  as prescribed under the code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency
\nof a civil action in a different  Court  even  though  higher  in  status  and
\nauthority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.”
\nIn  the  above  case,  the  Honourable  Apex  Court  has held that quashing of
\nproceedings at initial stage merely on the grounds that the very foundation of
\nthe criminal case is the subject matter of a civil case is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) VITOORI PRADEEP KUMAR v.  KAISULA DHARMAIAH<\/a> (2001 AIR SCW  2286)  wherein
\nthe Honourable Apex Court has held in para 2 that
\n“The  order  of  learned  Single  Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in
\nCriminal Revision No.602\/1999 allowing  the  revision  filed  by  the  accused
\npersons  on  the  ground  that the criminal case cannot proceed because of the
\npendency of a civil suit is the subject matter of the challenge in this Court.
\nAs it appears, before the learned Magistrate, an application for discharge was
\nfiled, but, the Magistrate was of the  opinion  that  there  exist  sufficient
\nmaterial  to proceed with the criminal case and therefore prayer for discharge
\nwas rejected…  Moreso, there is an earlier order of the High  Court  itself.
\nIn  this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court
\nand direct that the criminal proceedings should be  continued.    We  make  it
\nclear that any observation made, will not bind the Magistrate.”
\nIn  the  above  case,  the  Honourable  Apex  Court  has held that quashing of
\ncriminal proceedings on the ground that civil suit for specific performance is
\npending is untenable.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) M.KRISHNAN v.  VIJAY SINGH<\/a> (2001 AIR SCW 4142)  wherein  the  Honourable
\nSupreme Corut has held in para 9 that
\n“Right from the  case of R.P.Kapur V.  State of Punjab AIR<\/a> 1960 SC 866:  (1960
\nCRI LJ 1239), this Court has held  that  revisional  or  inherent  powers  for
\nquashing  the proceedings at the initial stage can be exercised only where the
\nallegations made in the complaint or the first  information  report,  even  if
\ntaken  at  their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
\ndisclose the commission of an offence or where the uncontroverted  allegations
\nmade in the FIR or complaint and the evidence relied in support of the same do
\nnot  disclose  the  commission  of  any  offence  against  the accused, or the
\nallegations are so absurd and inherently improper that on the basis  of  which
\nno  prudent  person  could  have  reached  a  just  conclusion that there were
\nsufficient grounds in proceeding against the accused  or  where  there  is  an
\nexpress legal bar engrafted in any provisions fo the Code or any other statute
\nto  the  institution  and  continuance  of the criminal proceedings or where a
\ncriminal proceeding is  manifestly  actuated  with  mala  fide  and  has  been
\ninitiated  maliciously  with the ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the
\naccused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
\nIn the above case, the  Honourable  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  when  the
\ncomplaint  alleges  commission  of  offence of cheating and fraud, quashing of
\ncomplaint merely on grounds that nature of  dispute  was  primarily  of  civil
\nnature is not proper.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)LALMUNI DEVI v.  STATE OF BIHAR<\/a> (2001 AIR SCW 2504) wherein the Honourable
\nApex Court has held in para 8 that
\n“There  could  be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does not
\nmake out an offence it can be quashed.  However, it is also settled  law  that
\nfacts may  give  rise  to a civil claim and also amount to an offence.  Merely
\nbecause a civil  claim  is  maintainable  does  not  mean  that  the  criminal
\ncomplaint cannot  be  maintained.    In  this case, on the facts, it cannot be
\nstated, at this prima facie stage, that this is a frivolous  complaint.    The
\nHigh Court  does  not  state that on facts no offence is made out.  If that be
\nso, then merely on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  civil  wrong  the  criminal
\nprosecution could not have been quashed.”\n<\/p>\n
In the above case, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that merely because a
\ncivil  claim  is  maintainable, it does not mean that criminal claim cannot be
\nmaintained.\n<\/p>\n
(v) M\/s.MEDCHL CHEMICALS & PHARMA PVT.  LTD., v.    M\/S.BIOLOGICAL  E.    LTD.<\/a>
\n(2000 AIR SCW 682) wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held in para 16 that
\n“Be  it  noted  that in the matter of exercise of High Court’s inherent power,
\nthe only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceeding would  be
\na total abuse of the process of Court.  The Criminal Procedure Code contains a
\ndetailed  procedure for investigation, charge and trial, and in the event, the
\nHigh Court is desirous of putting a stop to the known procedure  of  law,  the
\nHigh  Court  must use a proper circumspection and as noticed above, very great
\ncare  and  caution  to  quash  the  complaint  in  exercise  of  its  inherent
\njurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
In  the  above  case,  the Honourable Apex Court has held that the High Court,
\nwhile exercising its  inherent  powers  has  to  see  whether  continuance  of
\nproceedings  would be a total abuse of the process of court and the High Court
\nmust use its power with very  great  care  and  caution  before  quashing  the
\ncomplaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Sec.482  Cr.P.C.   confers a separate and independent power on the
\nHigh Court alone to pass orders ex-debito justitiae in cases where  grave  and
\nsubstantial  injustice has been done or where the process of the Code has been
\nseriously abused.  Inherent power conferred on the High  Court  under  section
\n482  has  to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such
\nexercise is justified by the tests  specifically  laid  down  in  the  section
\nitself.   It  is  only  when  the  ends  of justice are put in jeopardy by the
\nconduct of the parties, the inherent power can be  exercised.    A  proceeding
\ninitiated  on  a  complaint can be quashed when the complaint taken as a whole
\ndoes not disclose any offence.   In  appropriate  cases  the  High  Court  can
\nexercise  inherent  powers  to  protect  a  person  from illegal and vexatious
\nprosecution, but, where the circumstances do not so  warrant  the  High  Court
\nshould not quash the proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The  Honourable  Supreme  Court in R.P.KAPUR v.  STATE OF PUNJAB<\/a> (
\nAIR 1960 SC 866) has indicated some of  the  categories  of  cases  where  the
\ninherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should be exercised as\n<\/p>\n
(i)  Where  it  manifestly  appears  that  there  is  a  legal bar against the
\ninstitution or continuance of  the  criminal  proceeding  in  respect  of  the
\noffence alleged.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  Where  the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint,
\neven if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,  do
\nnot constitute the offence alleged.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  Where  the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an
\noffence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced  in  support  of
\nthe  case  or  the  evidence  adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
\ncharge.  So far as cases other than the  categories  of  the  cases  mentioned
\nabove,  the High Court shall refrain from exercising its inherent powers under
\nsec.482 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  In a proceeding instituted on a complaint,  exercise  of  inherent
\npowers  to  quash  the  proceedings  is  called  for  only in a case where the
\ncomplaint does  not  disclose  any  offence  or  is  frivolous,  vexatious  or
\noppressive.   When  an allegation on a complaint discloses a prima facie case,
\nthe process is issued by the Trial Magistrate, quashing of such proceedings is
\nillegal.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The allegation in the complaint against the petitioners herein  is
\nthat  the  first  petitioner  herein  is  the maternal uncle of the respondent
\nherein, during the last week of August 1992, he has induced her to  hand  over
\nthe  sale  deed  in  respect of the property in dispute to him enabling him to
\narrange for loan for the purpose of construction of a  building  in  the  said
\nplot for  her.   It is further alleged that she has entrusted him the original
\ntitle deeds of the said plot, but, he failed to  arrange  for  loan  till  the
\nmiddle  of  May 1997, she and her husband requested him to return the original
\nsale deed, but, he has been giving evasive reply.  The  first  petitioner  has
\nallegedly informed  the complainant that the original sale deed was lost.  She
\nhas  approached  the  Sub-Registrar’s  office  for  issuance  of   encumbrance
\ncertificate.    The  encumbrance  certificate  issued  by  the  Sub  Registrar
\ndiscloses that a power of attorney was executed in the name of the  respondent
\nin  favour of the second petitioner herein and the second petitioner allegedly
\nby virtue of the power of attorney, executed sale deed in favour of the  first
\npetitioner’s minor son.  Immediately, she has filed a private complaint before
\nthe XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, which was forwarded under sec.156(3) Cr.P.C.
\nto the police, and the police registered a case in Crime No.66\/98 for offences
\nunder  sec.465, 468, 470, 419, 420 read with sec.34 IPC, but, no investigation
\nhas been commenced by them, she has filed a petition under sec.482 Cr.P.C  for
\na direction  to  the police to investigate the case.  When the police reported
\nthat the case was referred as mistake of fact, but,  no  referred  notice  was
\nserved  on her, this court directed the police to serve refer notice to enable
\nher to file private complaint.  The respondent has filed a  private  complaint
\nbefore the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai which was
\ntaken  on  file  and  as  it  is evident that there is sufficient ground for a
\nproceeding and the learned Magistrate has ordered for issuance of  summons  to
\nthe attendance  of  the petitioners\/accused.  The respondent also filed a suit
\nbefore the competent civil court for a declaration to declare that the deed of
\npower of attorney as well as the sale deed both said to have been executed  by
\nher is null and void.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioners  advanced
\nargument that when a civil proceedings has been initiated, on the said set  of
\nfacts,   a   criminal   proceedings   initiated  in  a  private  complaint  is
\nunsustainable in law.  It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing  for
\nthe petitioners that when the respondent has also filed a civil suit where she
\nhas  canvassed  the  with regard to forgery and impersonation that the deed of
\npower of attorney and sale deed were created by  the  petitioners,  the  civil
\ncourt  is  the  competent  court  to  file  a  complaint,  as such the private
\ncomplaint initiated by the respondent is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In GOPALAKRISHNA MENON v.  D.RAJA REDDY (AIR<\/a> 1983 SC  1053),  the
\nmoney receipt alleged to have been forged was produced before the civil court,
\nbut,  the  same court has not chosen to give a complaint as contemplated under
\nsec.195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C., but, the private complaint has been initiated by
\nthe other side.   The  Honourable  Apex  Court  has  held  that  the  same  is
\nunsustainable in law since no complaint has been preferred by the court.  This
\njudgment  is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case
\nsince no such document was produced  by  the  petitioners  herein  during  the
\npendency of  the  civil  suit  to  attract  sec.195(1)(b)(ii)  of Cr.P.C.  The
\nargument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when a civil suit  is
\nalready  filed,  such  a  criminal  complaint  is  not  maintainable  is  also
\nunsustainable in law.  In ALPIC FINANCE LTD.  v.  P.SADASIVAN<\/a> ((2001) 3 SCC 51\n<\/p>\n
3) relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the facts in
\nthat case were that a person who availed a loan failed to repay  the  same  as
\nper the lease agreement.  The Honourable Supreme Court has held that on facts,
\nthe complaint does not disclose the element of deception or fraud or dishonest
\ninducement   or   wilful  misrepresentation  in  the  entire  transaction  and
\nultimately quashed the complaint, hence the said judgment is not applicable to
\nthis case.  In MAJOR SINGH v.  STATE OF PUNJAB (1986 CRI.   LJ  303)  criminal
\naction  was  initiated for various offences relating to acts of impersonation,
\nforgery, etc.  against the accused in spite of final  three  tier  verdict  of
\ncivil  courts  culminating  with the dismissal of regular second appeal on the
\nvery points against the complainant.  The remedy sought for by the  respondent
\nbefore  the  Trial  Court  is to declare that the deed of power of attorney as
\nwell as the sale deed is null and void  which  suit  is  pending.    But,  the
\ncriminal  proceedings  are  initiated  by  her  for the alleged offences under
\nsec.465, 468, 470, 419, 420 read with sec.34 IPC.  In a  criminal  court,  the
\nallegations  made  in  the  complaint  have  to  be established independently.
\nHence, this judgment is not applicable to the present case.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Even the judgment relied on by the  counsel  for  the  petitioner
\nreported  in  (2001)  3  SCC 513 cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court has
\nlaid down the ratio that merely  because  remedy  by  way  of  civil  suit  is
\navailable  is  not  an impediment in maintaining a criminal complaint provided
\nthe complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence alleged.   So,  now  we
\nhave  to look into whether the complaint filed by the respondent discloses the
\nalleged offences or not.  It is not the  case  of  the  petitioners  that  the
\ncomplaint  does  not  discloses  the ingredients of the offences alleged, but,
\nonly canvassed that the present complaint is vitiated as the earlier complaint
\nwas closed and suit for the same relief is filed.  The respondent  has  stated
\nvalid  reasons  for filing the present complaint that the police has failed to
\ninvestigate the matter.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  On a careful reading of the complaint, I am of the view that  the
\ncomplaint  preferred by the respondent herein discloses the ingredients of the
\nalleged offences under sec.465, 468, 470,  419,  420  read  with  sec.34  IPC.
\nHowever, it is for the Trial Court to decide whether or not the allegations in
\nthe complaint are otherwise correct on the basis of the evidence to be lead at
\nthe time  of  Trial.    I  am not inclined to exercise the power under sec.482
\nCr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In the result, this petition is dismissed without expressing  any
\nopinion on  merits of the case.  The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the
\ncomplaint and dispose of the same in accordance with law without  taking  into
\naccount any observation made by me.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
ssk.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Additional Chief Metropolitan
\nMagistrate,
\nEgmore,
\nChennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.No.4392 and 7880 of 2002 1. Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan 2. Dr.K.P.Natarajan ….. Petitioners -Vs- M.Lathamageswari ….. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 Crl.P.C. for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-20T17:04:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-20T17:04:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4022,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-20T17:04:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-20T17:04:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-20T17:04:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002"},"wordCount":4022,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002","name":"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-20T17:04:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-thiruneelakandan-vs-m-lathamageswari-on-11-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.K.Thiruneelakandan vs M.Lathamageswari on 11 October, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}