Madras High Court
Chintalapudi Veera Venkata Satya ... vs Chinta Venkateswarlu @ Venkat on 7 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2016
Chintalapudi Veera Venkata Satya Ramalingeswara Rao
... Petitioner
Vs.
Chinta Venkateswarlu @ Venkat
... Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to
call for the records in C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial
Magistrate at Yanam of set-aside the order of discharge of the accused U/S
245 (1) of Cr.P.C in C.C.No.1 of 2014 by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate at
Yanam on 11th April 2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.P.Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Jeyaraman
Legal Aid Counsel
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the judgment of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam dated 11.04.2016 made in C.C.No.1 of
2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2016
2. The revision petitioner before this Court is the complainant. Even
prior to this filing of the complaint, a police complaint was given by the
petitioner against the respondent for the alleged offences committed by him
under Sections 420, 406 and 426 IPC. After investigation final report has
been filed by referring the charge sheet. By raising objections over the final
report, the revision petitioner filed a Protest Petition before the Court and that
was treated as a private complaint.
3. After the complaint was taken on file, the learned Trial Judge found
that there are no prima facie materials available on record to frame charges
against the accused. For the above reasons, the respondent/accused was
discharged from the charges. Now this revision has been preferred before this
Court challenging the judgment dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Yanam.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire materials available on record.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
learned Judicial Magistrate has made an observation that there is no sufficient
material available on record to frame charges against the accused; but in fact
the Receipt dated 21.05.2008 and all other documents pertaining to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2016
transactions between the petitioner and the respondent have been produced as
Exs.P2 to P6; without appreciating the prima facie materials produced by the
petitioner/complainant, the learned trial Judge had proceeded to discharge the
accused by recording a finding that there is no prima facie material available
to convince the Court to frame the charges against the accused. The learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the case was taken on
file, it was observed by the learned trial Judge that there are prima facie
materials available on record and after the witnesses were examined, the trial
Court once again recorded a contradictory finding that there is no prima facie
materials available to frame charges against the accused.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the
judgment was made only after due appreciation of the materials produced
before it and hence, it does not warrant any interference.
7. Point for consideration:-
Whether the discharge of the accused under Section 245(1) of
Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate based on the materials available
on record is fair and proper?
8. It is not in dispute that even before filing the case, the petitioner had
preferred the police complaint and the same was referred as “mistake of fact”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2016
The Protest Petition filed by the petitioner has been treated as a private
complaint. The allegations against the respondent/accused is that he cheated
the petitioner after entering into a contract with him. The learned Trial Judge
was pleased to take the case on file on being satisfied with the prima facie
materials. At the time when the case was taken on file, it is not obligatory on
the part of the Trial Court to make any roving enquiry about the acceptability
or the binding nature of the materials produced before the Court. If prima
facie materials are produced at the out set to make out the case, the Trial Court
would take the case on file.
9. After the case was taken on file, the complainant has chosen to
examine himself as the one and only witness. Even when the opportunity was
given to the complainant about his entitlement to examine further witnesses
after framing of charges, the petitioner maintained that the evidence on record
is sufficient. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has left with no other option
except to analyse the materials then available on record. While appreciating
the evidence, it has been observed by the learned Magistrate that the materials
do not disclose an offence of cheating committed by the respondent/accused.
10. In fact from the materials produced by the petitioner/complainant, it
is seen that the respondent has made an excess payment of Rs.5,00,000/- than
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2016
what he was supposed to pay to the petitioner. The whole transaction between
the petitioner and the respondent has arisen out of an agreement between
themselves for purchase of high grade teak woods from Madhya Pradesh
Government Forest Department. The learned trial Judge has made a specific
observation that the payment made by the accused was in excess of the dues as
borne by the documents produced by the complainant and that would show
that the accused did not have any motive to cheat the complainant.
11. Even the allegations would show that the understanding between the
petitioner and the respondent is a kind of a contractual agreement. For breach
of promise by either of the parties, the remedy is open to knock the doors of
Civil Courts. At a stage when charges have to be framed, it is obligatory on
the part of the Magistrate to look little further into the binding nature of the
materials against the accused and to do the needful. The order of the learned
Magistrate would show that the Court had adverted into the documents
produced by the complainant and its acceptability has also been discussed at
length. The satisfaction about the prima facie materials at the time of taking
the case on file is different from scrutinising the sufficient materials for
framing of charges against the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2016
12. The distinction made by the learned Trial Judge in this context does
not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. The learned Magistrate has
evaluated all the relevant materials produced before the Court after
appreciating the same in correct perspective. Hence, I do not find any scope
for interference.
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed and the judgment
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam dated 11.04.2016 made in C.C.No.1
of 2014 is hereby confirmed.
07.01.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmi
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Yanam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA, J
kmi
Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2016
07.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
