Marimuthu v. Antony

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.08.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL OP(MD)No.5876 of 2016 and CRL MP(MD)Nos.2902, 2903 of 2016 & 1751 of 2017 Marimuthu : Petitioner/Respondent Vs.

Antony :Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the complaint copy in C.C.No.111 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni District and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Alagusundar For Respondent : Mr.G.Aravinthan ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the complaint copy in C.C.No.111 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. This petition is filed to quash the private complaint that was lodged as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that the earlier complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant and the same was closed as mistake of fact. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the agreement that was relied upon by the de facto complainant was sent for an ex pert opinion and that as per the opinion of the expert, the signature found in the document viz., agreement is not that of petitioner.

4. It was further stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the case was registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003, the same complaint for the same offence was enquired into earlier and closed as mistake of fact. Since the de facto complainant has preferred this complaint only after a period of two years, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay is a good reason to quash the private complaint in this case.

5. The fact that the expert opinion is against the case of the de facto complainant and that there is a delay of 2 years in filing this criminal complaint are all matters which will be considered at the time of trial. The admissibility or otherwise of the expert opinion also will be considered. However, it cannot be insisted to quash the proceedings at this stage. It is the duty of the Court to give full opportunity to the de facto complainant to prove this case as against the accused. The factual contention and the probability of the case of the de facto complainant cannot be decided at this stage. Truth or otherwise of the complaint will be decided by the Court at the relevant point of time. In that view, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni is directed to dispose of the case within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar TO 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Theni.

2.-Do-thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Theni District. +1cc to M/S.S.ALAGU SUNDAR, Advocate SR.No.75746 +1cc to M/S.G.ARAVINTHAN, Advocate SR.No.75144 trp MAS/KK/SAR1:11.09.2017 CRL OP(MD)No.5876 of 2016 and CRL MP(MD)Nos.2902, 2903 of 2016 & 1751 of 2017 29.08.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/