S.Manigandan v. E.S.Anbazhagan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 2/12/2024 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.R.C.No.1967 of 2024 S. Manigandan ...

Petitioner Vs

1. E.S.Anbazhagan

2. A. Kavitha ...

Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 21/2/2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.6039 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee.

For petitioner ...

Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy For respondents ...

Mr.A.Gouthaman - - - - -

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application filed under Sections 200 and 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondents herein. Page No:1/4

2. The sum and substance of the allegation in the complaint is that one Rajagopal was due to pay a sum of Rs.9,67,000/- to the petitioner and towards discharge of his liability, he had issued two cheques and the said cheques were misused by the first accused, who was employed under the petitioner and made it appear that cheques were issued in his favour and presented the same and hence, the first accused is liable for the offence under Sections 403, 407, 408, 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned Magistrate, on perusal of the complaint and other evidences on record and on hearing the respondents found that the respondents also had transactions with Rajagopal and Rajagopal had admitted in his reply to the statutory notice sent by the respondents that he had issued the cheques to the respondents and therefore, dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

4. This Court, on perusal of the impugned order finds that the learned Magistrate has considered the question as to whether the cheques said to have been issued by the said Rajagopal have been misused by the respondents. On facts, the learned Magistrate found that Rajagopal himself Page No:2/4

had admitted in his reply to the statutory notice that cheques were in fact issued to the respondents. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the cheques were issued in favour of the petitioner and misused by the respondents. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any non-payment of his dues by the said Rajagopal, it is needless to say that it is open to him to pursue the remedy available in law against Rajagopal. Hence, impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and accordingly, the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 2/12/2024 mvs.

Index: Yes/No To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee. Page No:3/4

SUNDER MOHAN, J mvs.

2/12/2024 Page No:4/4