Madras High Court
K.G.Punithakumar .. Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1070 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 10.10.2023
Pronounced on : 22.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1070 of 2023
K.G.Punithakumar .. Revision Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Cantonment Police Station,
Trichy.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Cantonment Range,
Trichy District. .. Respondents Nos.1 & 2/
Respondents
3. K.S.Shankar Murali .. Respondent No.3/Accused
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397
r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
order in S.R.No.1427 of 2023 dated 26.06.2023 filed under Section
Page No.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1070 of 2023
156(3) of Cr.P.C., on the file of the learned I-Additional District Judge
(PCR), Tiruchirapalli, and set aside the same as illegal and direct the
learned I-Additional District Court(PCR), Tiruchirapalli to take on file
and number the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R1 & R2
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated
26.06.2023 in S.R.No.1427of 2023 on the file of the learned I-Additional
District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.
2. The petitioner is the complainant in SR.No.1427 of 2023 on the
file of the I-Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli. The third
respondent is the practising advocate. He suppressed the fact regarding
the pendency of the civil suit between the petitioner's vendor relating to
the property situated in the in Survey No.26/2 of the villagers. The
petitioner gave Rs.15,00,000/- as brokerage amount. But he did not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disclose the fact that the said property is without good title and a number
of litigations are pending on the file of the competent Civil Court. Since
the petitioner made a complaint against the third respondent and other
persons stating that the said third respondent eventhough have
knowledge about the pendency of the Civil suit, in order to cheat the
petitioner, stated that there is no encumbrance in the said property.
Hence, he asked the third respondent to return the brokerage amount. At
that time, the third respondent abused him by using his caste name.
Hence, he made a complaint before the jurisdictional police officers. But,
they did not take any action and hence he made the petition to the higher
officials and they also did not take any steps. Hence, he filed the petition
before the I-Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli in SR.No.
1427 of 2023 to take action against the third respondent under section
156(3) Cr.P.C. The said petition was dismissed by the learned trial Judge
holding that the petitioner did not establish the ingredients to constitute
the offence and also not produced any evidence to prove the allegations
made in the petition. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed this
revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The petitioner, in the complaint filed under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., clearly stated the specific averments against the third respondent.
The third respondent is the advocate for the property purchased by the
petitioner. He suppressed the fact that the said property is in dispute. He
is the advocate to one of the parties. He received money from one of the
parties and by suppressing the fact, he arranged for sale of the property
and thereby the petitioner is unable to enjoy the properties. Hence,
according to the petitioner, this petition is liable to be allowed. The
petitioner further submitted that as per the law laid down in Lalitha
Kumari case and other judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the
material averments constitute the offence, the proof for the said material
is not the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate to look into the
possibility of conviction. Hence, he seeks to set aside the same. To
substantiate his plea, he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in 2023 (2) MWN Crl 18 (SC) and also relied the
reported judgement of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.4341 and 4752 of 2021
and Crl.R.C.No.234 of 2021. The learned counsel further elaborated the
argument that the petitioner has made out a case for enquiry by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
jurisdictional police officers. But, without considering the same, the
learned Judge passed the erroneous order and hence, he seeks to set aside
the order.
4. This Court has considered the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing on both side and perused the records and also the
precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The petitioner specifically alleged in the compliant that the third
respondent is the advocate of his vendor. He mediated the sale process.
He specifically stated that no dispute existed relating to the property. On
his inducement, the petitioner purchased the properties. He also received
huge amount as brokerage. But, the property is the subject matter of the
civil litigation between his vendor and other persons. In the said civil
proceedings, the third respondent has appeared on behalf of the
petitioner's vendor. But, with criminal intention to cheat the petitioner,
third respondent wilfully suppressed the above existence of the civil
dispute. Hence, the above averment prima facie constitutes the offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stated in the complaint. But, the learned trial Judge erroneously
dismissed the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C, the learned Judge is duty-bound to direct the jurisdictional police
to conduct enquiry as per the Lalitha Kumari case reported in
2014(2)SCC1 against the third respondent on the allegation made in the
petition that the third respondent willfully suppressed the pendency of
the Civil suit and received the brokerage and hence he has the knowledge
of cheating and inception and hence, there is sufficient ingredients of the
offence of cheating. Hence, this Court is inclined to accept submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023(2)MWN(Cr.)18(SC) in the
case of Kailash Vijayvargiya vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others. The
learned trial Judge committed error in dismissing the petition that the
petitioner has not proved the allegation. The same is beyond the
jurisdiction of the scope of enquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the order impugned in this
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed
and the impugned order in S.R.No.1427 of 2023 dated 26.06.2023 passed
by the learned I-Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli, is
hereby set aside. The second respondent police/the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Range, Trichy District, is hereby
directed to conduct the enquiry by issuing summons to the third
respondents under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C and complete the same within a
period of 14 days as fixed in the Lalitha Kumari case and register the
case, if any cognizable offence is made out.
22.11.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PJL
To
1. The I-Additional District Judge(PCR),
Tiruchirapalli.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Cantonment Range,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Inspector of Police,
Cantonment Police Station,
Trichy.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section (Records)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
PJL
Predelivery Order made in
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
