Madras High Court
Suresh vs State By Si Of Police on 9 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1797 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 30.10.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 9.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1797 of 2024 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14724 & 14725 of 2024
Suresh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State by SI of Police,
R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed
against the petitioner in C.C.No.4969 of 2014 on the file of the XXIII
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet modifying the conviction and sentence
in C.A.No.48 of 2023 pending on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai pending disposal of the Crl.R.C on the file of this court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 10
Crl.R.C.No.1797 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner was convicted vide judgment, dated 13.12.2022 in
C.C.No.4969 of 2014 by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,
Chennai (Trial Court) and sentenced to undergo one month Simple
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week
Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 294(b) IPC; to undergo three
months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 323 IPC; to
undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in
default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section
506(i) IPC; to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment for offence
under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai (Lower Appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.48 of 2023 and the same was
partly-allowed vide judgment, dated 21.08.2024 setting aside the conviction
and sentence for offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and confirming
the conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 323 and 420 IPC.
Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.Gist of the case is that the petitioner was known to the defacto
complainant (PW1) through PW3, a real estate broker. On 01.01.2014, the
defacto complainant (PW1) entered into an agreement for sale (Ex.P2) with the
petitioner for purchase of his house for sale consideration of Rs.19,00,000/- and
also paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in cash to the petitioner in his house. It was
agreed that within six months of the sale agreement, a sale deed would be
executed and the entire possession would be handed over to the defacto
complainant. PW3 is a witness to the sale agreement (Ex.P2). During the
month of February, 2014, when the defacto complaint had gone to the
petitioner's property to see the design and structure of the flat (Vasthu
Sasthram) with Vasthu expert, at that time the defacto complainant was
informed that the persons (Kaviya and Moorthy), who were staying above the
flat, already entered into an agreement with the petitioner for purchase of the
same flat. When the defacto complainant questioned the petitioner, he
informed that the said Kaviya applied for housing loan and since it was
rejected, the sale could not be executed and the advance amount received from
the erstwhile agreement holder of Rs.3,15,000/- repaid through cheque. On
enquiry, it was found that the said repayment cheque to Kaviya and Moorthy
got dishonoured. The defacto complainant on 02.05.2014 again enquired the
petitioner and the petitioner agreed to return the advance amount given by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defacto complainant and issued three cheques (Ex.P3) which got dishonoured.
On 26.05.2014, the petitioner had gone to typewriting centre of the defacto
complainant where he picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant, which
ensued into exchange of blows and thereafter a complaint (Ex.P1) lodged to
PW8. PW8, the Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint (Ex.P1),
assigned C.S.R.No.202 of 2014, thereafter registered FIR against the petitioner
in Crime No.1080 of 2014 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 420 and
506(ii) IPC. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the Trial
Court.
3.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, eight witnesses examined
as PW1 to PW8 and eight documents marked as Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of
the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of
trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner as stated above.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto
complainant not produced the sale agreement (Ex.P2) entered with the
petitioner to the respondent Police and it was belatedly produced only during
the course of trial. In such circumstances, how the investigation conducted and
charge sheet filed in this case is not known. PW8, the Sub Inspector of Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
admits that he initially received the complaint (Ex.P1), assigned CSR and
thereafter only FIR registered, entire investigation conducted and charge sheet
filed. In this case, the person who registered the FIR himself, had filed the
charge sheet, is also not proper. The learned counsel further submitted that
PW1 had given exaggerated version as could be seen from the contradictions
between the evidence of PW1 and PW4, PW5 who are eye witnesses to the
alleged occurrence. The Lower Appellate Court finding that there have been
improvement and contradictions in the evidence of PW1, rightly acquitted the
petitioner for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. When the
Lower Appellate Court disbelieved the evidence of PW1 in part, the Lower
Appellate Court ought to have set aside the conviction and sentence for offence
under Sections 323 and 420 IPC. The learned counsel further submitted that it
is purely a civil transaction i.e., a dispute in execution of the sale agreement.
The defacto complainant never stated that she was ready to handover the
balance sale consideration and despite calling for execution of sale deed, the
petitioner had refused. There is no question of deception at the inception in this
case, hence no offence under Section 420 IPC made out. The Trial Court
placing reliance on Exs.P2 and P3 and the evidence of PW1, PW2 (husband of
PW1) and PW3, an interested witness, who attested Ex.P2, had convicted the
petitioner. Despite there is no corroboration in the evidence of these witnesses,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Courts below convicted the petitioner on assumption and presumption. In
this case, though the cheques were stated to be dishonoured, no supporting
documents produced to show that the cheques got dishonoured for want of
funds. Thus, the conviction and sentence of both the Courts below, is not
proper, hence he prayed for acquittal.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, strongly
opposed the petitioner's contention and submitted that the petitioner is now
raised factual points which cannot be entertained in a revision. PW1 & PW2,
who are spouses, clearly stated about visiting the petitioner's house, after
negotiation entering into sale agreement with the petitioner for purchase of flat
and thereafter the sale agreement was entered between the petitioner and the
defacto complainant which has been attested by PW3. These witness
confirmed that the petitioner entered into sale agreement (Ex.P2) with the
defacto complainant which was attested by PW3, an independent witness.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the legality and
admission of the contents of the documents citing there was some corrections,
the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court on the evidence and
materials found that the petitioner had not disputed the signature in Ex.P2 and it
is not the case of the petitioner that he never executed Ex.P2. Added to it, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence of PW3, an independent witness, corroborated the evidence of the
defacto complainant.
6.It is further submitted that in this case, the cheques (Ex.P3), which
were given for return of part amount of the advance received from the defacto
complainant, got dishonoured and the issuance of the cheques by the petitioner
is not disputed. The signature in the cheques and in the sale agreement
confirmed that it is the petitioner who had executed these documents. The
learned counsel for the petitioner had only raised some technical objections
which were overruled. The evidence of PW4 and PW5 confirmed that the
petitioner had gone to the typewriting centre of the defacto complainant, picked
up quarrel, abused and threatened her. Immediately, the defacto complainant
informed the same to her husband PW2. Thus, on the evidence of PW1, PW2,
PW3 & PW4 and Exs.P2 & P3, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for
offence under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 323 and 420 IPC. The Lower Appellate
Court on independent analyse of evidence and materials set aside the conviction
of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, but
confirmed the conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 323 and 420
IPC. In view of the independent consideration of both the Courts below, the
judgments of the Courts below need not be interfered with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is
seen that the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court on independent
analyse of evidence and materials had convicted the petitioner. In fact, the
Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 294(b),
506(i), 323 and 420 of IPC and the Lower Appellate Court had independently
assessed the evidence and materials had set aside the conviction and sentence
for offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and confirmed the conviction
and sentence for offence under Sections 323 and 420 IPC. In this case, the
petitioner executed Exs.P2 and P3 which are not disputed. The sale
consideration for purchase of flat is to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/-, out of which,
the defacto complaint paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in cash to the petitioner and
thereafter, the petitioner issued cheques (Ex.P3) in repayment of the part of the
cheque amount, which got dishonoured. Except for technical objections, no
plausible or reasonable objections raised by the petitioner that Exs.P2 and P3
not executed by the petitioner. Added to it, the execution of Exs.P2 & P3
confirmed, corroborated by PW3, an independent witness. As regards abuse,
threat and wordy altercation by the petitioner against PW1, the evidence of
PW4 and PW5 confirms the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In view of the above, the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate
Court on independent analyse of evidence and materials, had rightly convicted
the petitioner. This Court finds there is no illegality or infirmity in the
judgment, dated 13.12.2022 in C.C.No.4969 of 2014 passed by the learned
XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai (Trial Court) except for the
offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and the judgment, dated
21.08.2024 in Crl.A.No.48 of 2023 passed by the learned IV Additional
Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Lower Appellate Court). Both the
judgments are hereby confirmed.
9.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The Trial
Court is directed to take all earnest steps to secure the petitioner for sufferance
of remaining period of sentence, without delay. Consequently, connected
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
9.01.2025
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vv2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
To
1.The Principal Special Judge,
Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
D3- Ice House Police Station,
Chennai-600005.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
9.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
