Madras High Court
S.Janarthanan vs R.Suresh Babu on 6 November, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9912 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9912 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.5039 and 5040 of 2021
1.S.Janarthanan
2.R.Karthikeyan
3.K.Kathir
4.S.Saravanakumar ... Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 to 5
Vs.
R.Suresh Babu ... Respondent /
Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the private
complaint in C.C.No.185 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Palani and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners
are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
For Respondent : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9912 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.185 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Palani.
2. Heard Mr.J.Jeyakumaran, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.V.Muthukamatchi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
3.The respondent, initially gave a complaint before the
District Crime Branch, Dindigul and based on the same, an FIR came to
be registered in Crime No.2 of 2017 as against six persons. The
allegation made against the accused persons is that in the deed of
dissolution, it was shown as if the first petitioner's son had left the
partnership firm on 01.05.2013 and whereas, the actual date must have
been mentioned as 29.05.2014. The case was investigated and ultimately,
a closure report was filed as action dropped before the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The respondent filed a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.7336
of 2018. The said petition was closed by granting liberty to the
respondent to file a private complaint and work out his remedies.
Accordingly, a private complaint was filed before the Court below and
the Court below has taken cognizance of the private complaint and
issued process as against six accused persons. Questioning the same, A1
to A5 have filed the present criminal original petition.
5.The main issue that has to be taken into consideration is as
to whether the Court below was right in taking cognizance of the private
complaint even without considering the closure report filed by the police
and the materials that were collected by the police while filing the
closure report.
6.The above issue is no longer res integra and it is covered
by the judgment of this Court in Narayanamma & Others. Vs. Chikka
Venkateshaiah, reported in 2019 (2) L.W (Crl.) 522. Reference can also
be made to the judgment in Alaguthangamani Vs. Saravanan, reported
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in 2022 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 156. This Court in no uncertain terms held that
the Court has to necessarily apply its mind on the closure report filed by
the police and the statements that were recorded by the police in the
course of investigation and which was filed along with the closure report.
7.There is no bar in the respondent filing a private complaint
on the same set of facts after the police filed a referred charge sheet.
However, while entertaining the private complaint, the Magistrate has to
necessarily apply his mind on the closure report and the materials that
were filed along with the closure report by the police. If the same is not
done, the very taking of cognizance of the private complaint becomes
illegal.
8.In the light of the above discussions, the cognizance taken
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, is hereby set aside. The matter
is remitted back to the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani and the
learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to call for the closure report and
the documents filed along with the closure report in Crime No.2 of 2017
on the file of the District Crime Branch, Dindigul and thereafter, deal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with the complaint filed by the respondent and take a decision on the
complaint filed by the respondent in line with the judgment referred
supra.
9.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PKN
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Palani.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
PKN
Dated: 06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
