Madras High Court
Sagayarasu vs K.Kasthuri on 27 February, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1369 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 16.04.2025
Delivered on : 20.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1369 of 2023
Sagayarasu : Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Kasthuri
2.K.Shoba
3.N.Arockiyadas
4.D.Vasanthakumar : Respondents
(petitioner name amended as per order of the Court, dated 27.02.2025
in Crl.M.P(MD)No.2381 of 2025 in Crl.RC(MD)No.1369 of 2023)
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order, dated 21.11.2023 made
in Cr.M.P.No.36473 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.VI, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same and direct the learned Judicial
Magistrate to take the private complaint on file and proceed in accordance
with law.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1369 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ragul,
for M/s.Gandhi Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar.
ORDER
The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in
Cr.M.P.No.36473 of 2023, dated 21.11.2023 on the file of the Court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli, in dismissing the private
compliant filed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the petitioner/defacto complainant is that he is a retired
Indian Railway employee; that when the petitioner was in need of Rs.1 lakh
for paying college fees for his son, the petitioner's friend introduced the first
respondent, who is working as Junior Assistant in HAPP and is also doing
money lending business; that the petitioner had obtained loan of Rs.1 lakh
from the first respondent and at that time, the first respondent had taken the
petitioner's sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 and the signatures in blank sheets in
the presence of retired railway employees Anandhan and one Karunanithi;
that the first respondent had taken totally Rs.1,84,200/- towards principal
and interest from the bank account of the petitioner during the period from
01.03.2014 to 01.07.2015; that when the petitioner demanded the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
respondent to return the original sale deed and the signed blank sheets, the
first respondent informed that he would trace out and return the same; that
when the petitioner was on official trip to Pune, Delhi, Bangalore and
Villupuram for the period between from 01.08.2015 and 07.09.2015, the
second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.959 of 2015 for recovery of
Rs.7 lakhs with interest before the I Additional Sub Court, Trichy and that
the petitioner is not aware about the second respondent as the petitioner had
not obtained any loan from the second respondent nor gave any document as
security.
3.It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent by
working in Central Government department has been doing money lending
business illegally; that the petitioner came to know that the first respondent
by lending money had cheated so many persons including the Government
staffs, that the petitioner does not know about the respondents 3 and 4, but
came to know that both of them had subscribed their signatures as attested
witnesses in the documents created fraudulently and that the respondents had
committed the offences under Sections 120(B), 193, 196, 209, 418, 420,
465, 469, 471, 474 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
Prohibition of charging Exorbitant Interest Act and under Sections 3, 6, 9,
10 (a) and 11 of Tamil Nadu Money Lender's Act.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, taking the petition filed under
Section 190(1)(a) r/w 200 Cr.P.C., as a complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C., and proceeded to conduct enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The
learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the
petitioner/complainant and also recorded the statements of three persons
Karunanithi, Annadurai and Anandhan produced by the petitioner. The
learned Magistrate, upon perusing the petitioner's complaint, sworn
statement of the complainant and the statements of the other witnesses and
the other materials produced, has passed the impugned order, dated
21.11.2023, holding that the dispute is of civil in nature and that there was
no prima facie case to proceed against the respondents, dismissed the
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere
pendency of civil suit is not a bar to proceed against the accused under
Criminal Law; that the complaint filed by the petitioner, his sworn statement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
and the statements of the other witnesses disclose prima facie case as against
the respondents; that the petitioner in addition to his sworn statement has
produced three witnesses in support of his case; that the respondents 1 and 2
have filed nearly 20 cases for the offences under Section 138 of NI Act
against the various borrowers and the same would confirm the fact that they
are habitually filing the cases against the innocent borrowers by misusing the
documents obtained by them fraudulently and that the learned Magistrate,
without considering the averments in the private complaint and the
statements of the witnesses, has proceeded to dismiss the complaint and that
thereafter, the same is liable to be interfered with.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision of
this Court in P.K.Palanisamy Vs. Doraisamy reported in 1992 0 Supreme
(Mad) 627 and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder :
“ 4. It is true, that there can be no doubt, that the
complaint could be dismissed, if the Magistrate thought that
there was no sufficient ground for proceeding. This "sufficient
ground" contemplated under the section, relates to the facts
which the complaint places before the Court, to show existence of
prima facie case against the accused. It is further true that in
arriving at his conclusion under section 203, Cr.P.C. Learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
Magistrate can take into consideration any inherent
improbabilities appearing on the fact of the complaint or in the
evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations, but
the line of demarcation is thin between the probability of a
conviction of the accused and the establishment of a prima facie
case against him. The thinner the demarcation the greater is the
responsibility of the Magistrate in exercising his judicial
discretion. At this stage, the veracity and effect of the evidence
which the complainant produce or proposes to adduce at the
trial, are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of proof
and judgment, which is to be applied finally before finding the
accused quality or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the
stage contemplated under sections 202 and 203, Cr.P.C. When a
prima facie case is made out, a complaint cannot be
mechanically dismissed, on the score that a conviction may not
be feasible ultimately. An opportunity should be given to the
complainant to prove his case.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on an another
decision of this Court in the case of S.Dhananjeyan Vs. R.Mohan reported
in (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 170 and the relevant passages are extracted
hereunder:
“ 10. On a perusal of the order impugned, I find that the
learned Magistrate has over-reached and misdirected himself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
He has to find out the availability of sufficient materials to
substantiate a prima facie case but discussed about the
prospects of the case, which is not required under law. It has
been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and this Hon'ble
Court that such an exercise is deprecated. The question at the
initial stage was not whether there was any truth in the
allegation made in the complaint but the question was whether
on the basis of the allegations prima facie case and an offence
is made out. The truth or otherwise of the allegation made in
the complaint would be examined at the time of the trial.”
8. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the legal position
referred above. It is settled law that very object of enquiry under Section 202
Cr.P.C., is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint and that at the
time of taking cognizance of offence, the Court has to consider only the
averments made in the complaint and the statements recorded if any and that
if the Magistrate is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the
accused, can issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate
is satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, can dismiss the
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
9. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the
second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.959 of 2015 for recovery of
Rs.7 lakhs with interest and the same is pending on the file of the
I- Additional Sub Court, Trichy from 2015 onwards; that the petitioner has
raised vague and bald allegations against the respondents; that the learned
Magistrate considering the complaint and statements of the witnesses and
other materials produced has come to a decision that there is absolutely no
material to proceed against the respondents and that the petitioner has only
been attempting to convert the civil dispute into a criminal case and that
therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate.
10. As already pointed out, it is the specific case of the petitioner that
he borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh by giving his original sale deed and signed
blank sheets and that the first respondent has recovered the loan amount
from the bank account of the petitioner and that since the petitioner has
discharged the loan, he demanded the first respondent to return his original
sale deed and signed blank sheets, but the first respondent informed that the
same were kept in his office and he would trace out and hand over the same
and that the petitioner had believed the words of the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
11.The petitioner admittedly knew about the first respondent's Central
Government job when borrowing the loan. Initially, the petitioner stated that
he agreed to take the loan after confirming the first respondent's money
lending license. However, later in the complaint, the petitioner alleged that
the first respondent's money lending activities while working in the Central
Government Department were an offence.
12.The petitioner alleged that despite repeated requests, the first
respondent failed to return the original sale deed and blank sheets, instead
misusing them to file cases through other individuals. The petitioner has
provided a list of cases allegedly filed by the first respondent through others,
including relatives.
13. Section 193 and 196 of IPC deals with false evidence. Section 195
of Cr.P.C, strictly mandates that prosecution for offence under Section 193
and 196 IPC can only be initiated through Court sanctioned complainant and
not through private complaint. Section 340 of Cr.P.C, outlines the procedure
for initiating prosecution in cases where an offence referred to in Section
195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., appears to have been committed on or in relation to a
Court proceeding.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
14. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to plead specific
offenses under Sections 193 and 196 IPC or the requirements for a court
complaint. Furthermore, the petitioner has not provided details regarding
alleged cheating and forgery. Although the petitioner alleged offenses under
the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act and Tamil
Nadu Money Lender's Act, there is no mention of the interest rate claimed or
collected.
15. It is pertinent to note that when a complaint is filed before the
Court of competent jurisdiction, the Magistrate will have two options and as
per first option, he can take the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C.,
by examining the complainant and witnesses if any and he can pass orders
either to dismiss the same under Section 203 Cr.P.C., or to issue process
under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. As per second option, if the complaint
discloses any cognizable offence, he can refer the matter for investigation
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to find out the truth of allegations.
16. In the case on hand, as already pointed out, the petitioner has filed
a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the learned Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
has rightly proceeded with enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and after
finding that there are no sufficient materials to proceed against the
respondents, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.
17.Considering the complaint under Section 200 CrPC, the sworn
statement of the complainant, witness statements, and other materials on
record, this Court concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish a prima
facie case against the respondents. It appears that the petitioner is attempting
to cloak a money transaction in criminal garb. The learned Magistrate's order
dismissing the complaint under Section 203 is justified. Consequently, this
Court finds the criminal revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
20.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
das
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das
Pre-delivery Order made in
Dated: 20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 06:29:01 pm )
