Madras High Court
M.Gagan Bothra vs Jsk Film Corporation on 9 January, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2022
M.Gagan Bothra ... Petitioner
/vs/
1. JSK Film Corporation,
Rep. by its Prop.J.Satish Kumar,
No.47, Giriappa Road, T.Nagar, Chennai.
2. J.Sathish Kumar, ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment/order dated 27.06.2022 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.10603 of 2019 in C.C.No.1105 of 2017 by the Learned Fast
Track Court No.4, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Gagan Bothra (Party-in-person)
For Respondents ... Mr.L.Infant Dinesh
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2022
Challenging the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.10603 of
2019 in C.C.No.1105 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Fast Track Court
No.4, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, dated 27.06.2022,
the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner appeared party-in-person. The
complainant/petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent/accused for
dishonour of cheque bearing No.000512, dated 22.03.2017, for a sum of
Rs.45,00,000/-. He, while filing the complaint, filed the original cheque and
other documents. After taking sworn statement, all documents had been
returned to the complainant, to produce the same at the time of trial.
Thereafter, a criminal complaint has been registered against the petitioner and
his father in Crime No.213 of 2017 and they were arrested and the police
have seized 200 documents along with the original cheque. Hence, the
petitioner and his father filed an application in Crl.M.P.Nos.383 and 384 of
2018 in Crime No.213 of 2017, for a direction to return the seized
documents.
3. The trial Court, vide order dated 15.02.2018 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2022
Crl.M.P.Nos.383 & 384 of 2018 elaborately discussed and ordered to return
the documents listed in the order seized by the police under the mahazar in
the above said crime number. In that list of documents, the disputed cheque
was also mentioned but the original cheque taken by the police in Crime
No.213 of 2017, has not been returned. Therefore, the petitioner filed an
application in Crl.M.P.No.10603 of 2019 before the trial Court seeking
permission to file the xerox copy of the cheque. The trial Court, by passing
the impugned order, rejected the application without considering the genuine
reason. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order and to permit him to
file xerox copy of the cheque as the secondary evidence.
4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent objected to
allow the revision and further contended that, the petitioner's father gave a
letter to the respondent on 18.07.2017, in which, after settling the amount, all
the original documents given by the respondent were returned to him. Under
these circumstances, this petitioner falsely by using the xerox copy of the
cheque filed the complaint. Therefore, it cannot be permitted to file xerox
copy of the cheque to proceed the case. Hence, there is no reason to interfere
with the order passed by the trial Court and he seeks to dismiss the revision.
5. On perusal of records, the fact reveals that the petitioner filed
the complaint against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2022
138 N.I Act, for dishonour of cheque bearing No.000512, dated 22.03.2017,
for a sum of Rs.45,00,000/-. The case has been taken on file in C.C.No.1105
of 2017. During the trial, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.10603
of 2019 seeking permission of the Court to file the xerox copy of the disputed
cheque as the secondary evidence on the ground that the original cheque was
seized by the respondent police in connection with the case registered in
Crime No.213 of 2017, which was evidenced in the order passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB cases (relating to cheating
cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai. The Metropolitan
Magistrate Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.383 and 384 of 2018 by its order dated
15.02.2018, considered the petition seeking return of documents seized by
the police, and in paragraph No.14, it was recorded what are the documents
seized by the police pertaining to the Crime No.213 of 2017 are mentioned.
On perusal of that schedule of documents seized by the police, the disputed
cheques is mentioned in the schedule, which was seized by the C.C.B. Police
in connection with the Crime No.213 of 2017.
6. The trial Court ordered in Crl.M.P.Nos.383 & 384 of 2018 to
return the documents seized from the petitioner. But so far, the police not
returned the documents related in Crl.M.P.No.10603 of 2019 to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2022
petitioner. Under these circumstances, this petitioner filed a petition seeking
permission of the Court to file the xerox copy of the cheque as the secondary
evidence.
7. The Learned Counsel for the respondent objected and
contended on the ground that, on 18.07.2017, the father of the petitioner on
receiving the loan amount, returned all the documents given by the
respondent/accused. Therefore, the xerox copy of the original cheque, which
was returned by the complainant's father to the accused cannot be permitted.
So, it has to be decided before the trial Court by letting in evidence, whether
the original cheque has been returned to the accused by the father of the
petitioner or the police has been seized the original cheque while arresting the
petitioner and his father in Crime No.213 of 2017 by the Central Crime
Branch, Egmore, Chennai.
8. Therefore, the factual dispute that the original cheque has been
seized by C.C.B Police, Chennai, in connection with the crime No.213 of
2017 or the original cheque was returned to the respondent/accused by the
father of the complainant on 18.07.2017, as per the letter produced by the
respondent counsel before this Court, has to be decided by the trial Court,
after letting in evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2022
9. Therefore, the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.10603 of 2019
is hereby set aside and the trial Court is directed to receive the xerox copy of
the disputed cheque and other related documents mentioned in
Crl.M.P.No.10603 of 2019 as the secondary evidence and permit the
accused/respondent to let in evidence to prove that the original cheque has
been returned by the father of the petitioner on 18.07.2017 and dispose the
case, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
10. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Petition is
Allowed.
09.01.2023
Index : Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
bsm
To,
The Learned Fast Track Court No.4, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,
Chennai.
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
bsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2022
09.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
