C.Rajaggopal vs The State Rep By
2023 Latest Caselaw 786 Mad

                                                                                      Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 20.01.2023

                                                           CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022
                                                 and Crl.M.P.No.2309 of 2022

                1.C.Rajaggopal
                2.Tamil @ P.Purushothaman
                3.P.Singaravelu                                                            .. Petitioners
                                                            Versus
                1.The State Rep by
                The Sub-Inspector of Police
                Choonambedu Police Station
                Choonambedu
                Kanchipuram District

                2.M.Pazhani                                                              .. Respondents

                Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
                Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.5 of 2021 on the file of learned District
                Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, Chengleput District and quash the
                same.
                          For Petitioners              :      Mr.S.R.Raaghhavan
                          For Respondents              :     Mr.S.Santhosh for R1
                                                             Government Advocate

                                                             Mr.B.Raja for R2

                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the

records in C.C.No.5 of 2021 on the file of learned District Munsif Cum Judicial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1 / 10 Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

Magistrate, Cheyyur, Chengleput District and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second

respondent/defacto complainant gave a false complaint against the petitioners

alleging that he borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the first accused. It is stated

in the complaint that taking advantage of his urgency, the accused made him to

part with five blank promissory notes with a signature at the time of lending

money in 2001. He was paid Rs. 26,500/- after deducting Rs.3500/- towards

interest. In 2002, he repaid the entire principal along with interest to the tune of

Rs.53,108/-, however, the first accused did not return the blank promissory notes.

Despite making several request, he refused to hand over the black promissory

notes. Thereafter, using one of the blank promissory note, he fabricated the

promissory note as if the second respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from

one Mr.P.Purushothaman/second respondent herein. In the said promissory note,

Mr.C.Rajagopal/first petitioner herein had signed as witness and

Mr.P.Singaravelu/third petitioner herein filled the promissory note. The accused

colluded together, created false promissory note and cheated the second

respondent. When, it was questioned, the accused said to have criminally

intimidated him/defacto complainant with a death threat and abused him. In this

regard, he gave a complaint to the police. For giving complaint, the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2 / 10 Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

accused/Mr.C.Rajagopal had threatened the defacto complainant on 14.06.2011

and once again, he made death threat on 23.06.2011 at about 10.30 am.

Therefore, the complaint was given. On the basis of the complaint, FIR in Crime

No.287/2011 was registered for the offences under Section 341, 294(b), 506(i)

and 420 IPC by Choonambedu Police Station.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

allegations in the FIR are totally false for the reasons that nobody would give five

blank promissory notes while borrowing a sum of Rs.30,000/- and nobody would

pay the principal and interest to the tune of Rs.53,108/- without getting blank

promissory notes. Even assuming promissory notes were given, the borrowal from

accused C.Rajagopal and borrowal from P.Purushotthaman are totally two

different transactions. On the basis of borrowal from P.Purushotthaman and

execution of promissory notes, a suit in O.S.No.6 of 2010 on the file of Sub-

Court, Maduranthagam was instituted by P.Purushotthaman. The suit was

decreed in favour of P.Purushotthaman on 12.11.2018 and an appeal was filed in

A.S.No.1 of 2019 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpet.

4. He further submitted that during the Trial, the defacto complainant

threatened the accused 2 and 3 not to give evidences in O.S.No.6 of 2010. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3 / 10 Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

Therefore, a complaint dated 07.04.2011 was given to the police. Since, no action

was taken, complaint was sent to various authorities. Even thereafter, no action

was taken. Thus, it is clear from the narration of the case, the complaint dated

23.06.2011 is a motivated and false complaint. The investigation conducted on

the basis of the complaint dated 23.06.2011 has not taken into consideration the

true facts and the impugned final report is filed supporting the case of the second

respondent. Though, this case was pending from the year 2013, viz., in

C.C.No.105 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthakam, not even

a single witness was examined. The accused are residing Pondicherry, whereas,

the defacto complainant is living nearby Maduranthakam. The accused are

unnecessarily being harassed to appear before the Court without any progress.

For all these reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

impugned final report has to be quashed.

5. In response, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted

that the defacto complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000 from the first accused

in the year 2001. At that time, he was forced to part with five promissory notes

and five stamp papers. In 2002, he returned the principal amount with interest to

the tune of Rs.53,108/-. When demanded the return of blank promissory notes

and stamp papers, the accused refused to return the blank promissory notes and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4 / 10 Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

stamp papers. On 13.03.2009, a legal notice was sent by claiming Rs.1 lakh on

the basis of the above promissory notes. Immediately, a reply was sent in

24.03.2009. As against the judgment in OS.No.6 of 2010, a first appeal in

A.S.No.1 of 2019.

6. Learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the case was

transferred to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur in 2019. Due

to the Covid-19 situation, the case was taken on file in 2021 in C.C.No.5 of 2021.

Second respondent received summons on 10.01.2023 for giving evidences.

Therefore, appeared before the learned Magistrate, but, he was not examined in

the Court. The defacto complainant is ready to give evidence, whenever he

receives summons from the Court. He also submitted that the accused are in the

habit of cheating the gullible victims, who are in need of money by getting blank

promissory notes and other documents, depriving them of their properties. The

statement of witnesses are also recorded in this regard and produced in this case.

It is also submitted that enough materials are available to proceed against the

accused in the case.

7. The learned Government Advocate would submit that he will give

suitable instructions to the respondent police for expeditious trial by producing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5 / 10 Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

witnesses at short intervals. It is also submitted that there is no regular Additional

Public Prosecutor for Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur and in-charge Magistrate is

attending regular Court, but also other Courts as well.

8. Perused the records. From the narration of the facts above, the brief case

of the prosecution is that the the second respondent borrowed a sum of

Rs.30,000/- from the first accused. At that time, the first accused made him to

part with five blank promissory notes with his signature. Thereafter, despite the

payment of Rs.53,108/- being the principal with interest, to the first accused, the

first accused refused to return the blank promissory notes. However, using one of

the promissory notes, he made to institute a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.1 lakh

with the help of P.Purushothaman/second petitioner herein. It is said that the first

accused is the witness in the promissory note and the third accused is the person

who filled the promissory note. When this was questioned by the second

respondent, the first accused is said to have made a death threat and also stated

that he would get all his properties and eliminate his family members. On

14.06.2011 and 23.06.2011, it is claimed that, criminal intimidations continued.

9. Of-course, certain questions arises as to whether the second respondent

could have paid Rs.53,108/- without getting any acknowledgement/receipts for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6 / 10 Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

repayment or without receiving the alleged black promissory notes said to have

been handed over to the first accused at the time of borrowal. The allegations of

criminal intimidation and other allegations of abuse can be made by anyone. This

Court finds there are statements of witnesses namely Mr.Pazhani Aachari,

Suresh, Sekar, Thirunavukarasu, who had supported the case of the prosecution

with regard to the incident on 23.06.2011. Statement is also recorded from one

Mrs.Parimala. She stated that the first accused Mr.Rajagopal would lend money

and then get the property of borrower by hook or by crook. The prosecution had

also cited witnesses Mr.Veerabadhiran, Mrs.Mangalakshmi, Mrs.Virudhambal,

Mrs.Indrani in support of its case.

10. In light of the materials available before this Court and in light of the

contradictory positions taken by the parties, this Court sitting in 482 Cr.P.C.

cannot conduct a roving investigation as to the veracity of the claim made by rival

parties and it is not the job of this Court. This Court finds that there are materials

enough available to proceed with the case. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition

is liable to be dismissed. At the same time, the learned Judge is directed to

dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order by posting the case at

short intervals.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7 / 10 Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioners have been attending the Court for the last 9 years without any

progress. Therefore, he prayed for dispensing with the personal appearance of the

petitioners. Though a separate petition is not filed, this Court considering the fact

that the case is pending without any progress, directs the trial Court not to insist

upon the presence of the petitioners for every hearing. The petitioners may be

asked to appear before the Court whenever required, like for receiving copies, for

answering the charges, for questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C. and on any

other date required by the trial Court. The petitioners must ensure that they are

being represented by their counsel on other dates for smooth conduct of the trial.

They must also file an undertaking affidavit that they will not challenge their

identification by the witnesses.

12. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.01.2023

Internet:Yes/No dhk To https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8 / 10 Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

1. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Cheyyur, District

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police Choonambedu Police Station Choonambedu Kanchipuram District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9 / 10 Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

dhk

Crl.O.P.No.4511 of 2022

20.01.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10 / 10