Madras High Court
Now Working At vs The Inspector Of Police on 2 December, 2021
1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12631 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH
COURT
DATED: 02.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12631 of 2021
and
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.6434 of 2021
Vipin,
Branch Manager,
UCO Bank, Karungulam,
Thoothukudi District.
Now working at
UCO Bank,
ASD Puram,
Pollachi – 2. ... Petitioner / Sole Accused
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Seidunganallur police station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.64 of 2020) ... Respondent / Complainant
2. Srirenga Natchiyar ... Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C, to call for the records from the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court, Srivaikundam in C.C.No.113 of 2021 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12631 OF 2021
quash the same as it has no prima facie case as against the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.K.Prabhu.
For R-1 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R-2 : Ms.Srirenga Natchiyar,
Party-in-Person.
***
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing
the proceedings in C.C.No.113 of 2021 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.
2.The second respondent herein is the defacto
complainant in Crime No.64 of 2020 registered on the file of
Seidunganallur police station for the offences under Sections
418, 420, 466 and 467 of IPC.
3.The case of the defacto complainant is that the
petitioner herein filed O.S.No.15 of 2017 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Srivakundam for recovering a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12631 OF 2021
Rs.66,274/- from her with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The
said suit was filed on the strength of revival letter dated
05.01.2015 that is said to have been executed by the defacto
complainant. The defacto complainant in her written
statement filed before the civil Court contended that she never
executed such a revival letter and that it was a rank forgery.
The document was referred to the Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory for opinion. The Deputy Director had given a
report dated 19.06.2019 opining that the said document was
not signed by the defacto complainant. Since Ex.A.7 was held
to be disproved, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated
27.11.2019 dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation.
4.Thereafter, the defacto complainant sent a complaint
dated 10.01.2020 to the Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Region, for prosecuting the petitioner herein.
Initially CSR alone was issued. Thereafter, the defacto
complainant took steps and only thereafter, the First
Information Report came to be registered. The first
respondent conducted investigation and filed final report
before the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam and cognizance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12631 OF 2021
of the offences was also taken. Summon was issued to the
petitioner and to quash the proceedings, this criminal original
petition has been filed.
5.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the
memorandum of grounds and contended that the impugned
proceedings constitute a clear abuse of legal process and
wanted the same to be quashed.
6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the first respondent submitted that this Court
while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
cannot go into factually contentious matters. The case on hand
involves an allegation of forgery. Whether the petitioner
committed the same or not has to be gone into during a
regular trial and he called upon this Court to dismiss this
criminal original petition.
7.The defacto complainant appeared in person before
this Court through video conferencing and submitted that as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12631 OF 2021
on date, the finding of the civil Court is holding good. It is true
that the bank had filed an appeal. But it is still pending at the
stage of condonation of delay. Be that as it may, the petitioner
can very well canvass all these contentions before the trial
Court. She firmly stated that no case for quashing has been
made out. The defacto complainant filed her written
submissions.
8.I carefully considered the rival contentions and the
went through the materials on record.
9.There is no dispute that the defacto complainant had
availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the UCO Bank, Karungulam
Branch in the year 2008. The husband of the defacto
complainant had stood as guarantor. According to the bank,
only a portion of the loan liability was cleared. The defacto
complainant would state that she had paid a sum of
Rs.38,000/- and that if the subsidy is also taken, the entire
loan liability stood liquidated. In any event, the case on hand
does not relate to the liability of the defacto complainant. This
is because, the bank had already filed a civil suit and the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12631 OF 2021
was also dismissed. Whether the defacto complainant had
cleared the liability or not is subject to the appeal proceedings
instituted by the bank. The bank had filed the said recovery
suit by claiming that the defacto complainant had executed
confirmation and revival letters. One such letter is dated
05.01.2015 which was marked as Ex.A.7 before the trial Court.
If the defacto complainant had executed the said document,
the suit would be in time. The defacto complainant had
specifically taken a plea that Ex.A.7 is a rank forgery.
Therefore, the said document was referred to the Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory and the report dated 19.06.2019
states that the signature found in Ex.A.7 is not that of the
defacto complainant. Thus, as on date, the finding of the civil
Court is that the said revival letter is forgery.
10.Now the only question that arises for determination is
whether the petitioner herein deserves to be prosecuted.
The recovery suit was filed not by the petitioner in his
individual capacity but only on behalf of the UCO Bank,
Karungulam Branch. The petitioner has no personal element
at all. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12631 OF 2021
document in question was actually fabricated or prepared by
the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner was the Branch
Manager during the relevant time and the case was filed in his
name, he cannot be fastened with penal liability. From this
single circumstance, one cannot straightaway come to the
conclusion that the petitioner had fabricated the said
document. The plaintiff bank was not shown as an accused.
There is no material to show that the petitioner played a part
in the fabrication of the document. That apart, the judgment of
the trial court has been put to challenge by the bank before
the appellate court. The defacto complainant admitted having
borrowed Rs.50,000/-. Even according to her, Rs.38,000/- was
repaid. The official of the creditor bank is also being
prosecuted. This is a case of zero evidence against the
petitioner. The police have not obtained statement from any
bank official that the petitioner was responsible for fabricating
the revival letter. There is no statement recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.pc that the borrower never came to the bank
for signing the revival letter. Merely because the renewal
letter filed along with the plaint was found to be not
containing the signature of the defacto complainant, one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12631 OF 2021
cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner was
responsible for the fabrication. Continuance of the impugned
prosecution is an abuse of legal process. Therefore, the
impugned proceedings are quashed. This criminal original
petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
02.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Srivaikundam.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Seidunganallur police station,
Thoothukudi District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12631 OF 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12631 of 2021
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
