Madras High Court
Pavadaisamy vs Krishnamurthy on 17 June, 2021
W.A.No.2254 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.2254 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.17975 of 2018
Pavadaisamy .. Appellant
Vs
1.Krishnamurthy
2.The District Collector,
Puducherry.
3.The Specified Officer,
Villianur Taluk Office,
Villianur.
4.Uma Maheaswari .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 11.06.2018 made in W.P.No.19686 of 2012.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Thiagarajan
For Respondents : Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.T.S.Baskaran for R1
Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh,
Government Counsel for R2 and R3
No appearance for R4
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2254 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal is filed against the portion of the order of the learned
Single Judge, who while confirming the order impugned in the writ
petition dated 06.07.2012, set aside the part of it by which, the second
respondent has directed the Station House Officer, Thirukkanur to
register a criminal case against the contesting respondent pursuant to
the order passed.
2. The learned Single Judge has held that the issue before the
second respondent was different and the contesting respondent has
not been heard with respect to the alleged cheating and forgery. It is
further held that these are all matters for investigation on a
complaint, if any given or to be given by the appellant.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the Station House Officer closed the complaint given by the appellant
placing reliance upon the order of the learned Single Judge. The
contesting respondent viz., first respondent has committed fraud and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2254 of 2018
forgery. In such view of the matter, the order passed requires
interference.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that a comprehensive suit was filed before the I Additional
District Munsif, Puducherry in O.S.No.724 of 2013 and the trial was
already over and the matter is posted for arguments. The learned
Single Judge is perfectly right in holding that the second respondent
has taken up the issue, which is not germane to the appeal. There is
no power or authority to direct the Station House Officer to register a
complaint and investigate, particularly, in the light of the pendency of
the civil proceedings.
5. The appeal lies in a very narrow compass. The learned Single
Judge, in our considered view, is perfectly right in setting aside that
part of the order under challenge as the second respondent ought not
to have gone into the issue of fraud and forgery leading to registration
of the complaint. This was sought to be done pursuant to the orders
passed by the second respondent dated 06.07.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2254 of 2018
6. It is no doubt true that the law can be set in motion when a
cognizable offence is made out by asking the Station House Officer to
register the complaint. However, the role of the second respondent is
different and separate. He being the appellate authority is governed by
the statute. His powers are circumscribed by the statute. The question
as to whether such a direction can be given was not part of the
adjudication emanated as a consequence to the decision made. After
all, the second respondent was expected to deal with the
administrative action having civil consequence. Even assuming that it
is a quasi-judicial, such a power cannot be exercised.
7. However, we could see the grievance of the appellant. The
appellant can maintain the complaint if a cognizable offence is made
out seeking registration. The order passed by the learned Single Judge
has got no bearing to the aforesaid action. In such view of the matter,
we would only clarify that the order of the learned Single Judge will not
stand in the way of the appellant to take appropriate action including
the complaint being given for registration of a cognizable offence. We
also make it clear that mere pendency of the civil suit will not have a
bearing for registration of a complaint provided cognizable offence is
made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2254 of 2018
8. With the above said observation, this writ appeal stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
17.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
1.The District Collector,
Puducherry.
2.The Specified Officer,
Villianur Taluk Office,
Villianur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2254 of 2018
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.2254 of 2018
17.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
