Where allegation makes out prima facie accused cannot be discharged.

(Revision preferred under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.7290 of 2005 in S.C.No.387 of 2005 dated 30.11.2005 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, rejecting the application for discharge and the said judgment is unjust and illegal.

Revision preferred under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.10381 of 2005 in S.C.No.387 of 2005 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai and to set aside the same.)

Common Order

As against the order of dismissal passed by the Mahila Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.7290 of 2005 filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Crl.R.C.175 of 2006 has been preferred.

2. As against the order of dismissal passed by the Mahila Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10381 of 2005 filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Crl.R.C.303 of 2006 has been preferred.

3. As both the criminal revision cases have arisen out of the very same sessions case in S.C.No.387 of 2005 seeking very same relief of discharge, both the criminal revision cases are taken up for a common disposal.

4. Having been aggrieved against the order of dismissal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.7290 of 2005, the 7th accused, Damodaran, who was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 384 r/w Section 34, 420 r/w Section 34, 407 r/w Section 34 and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, moved Crl.R.C.No.175 of 2006 and against the order of dismissal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10381 of 2005, the 5th accused, Kalki Manoharan @ N.Manoharan, who was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 384 r/w Section 34, 420 r/w Section 34, 407 r/w Section 34 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, moved Crl.R.C.No.303 of 2006.

5. The 7th accused Damodaran has been charge sheeted alleging that he forcibly collected donations from the complainant and other innocent devotees to an extent of Rs.8 lakhs and issued receipts in the name of Thiru Ramanujam Mission Trust and Shri Bashyakara Charitable Trust, when actually there was no activity in the trust. Having colluded with the first accused in his capacity as a Secretary of the said trust committed the offences punishable under the aforesaid provision of law. It has been further alleged that he had written a threatening letter to the defacto complainant.

6. The contention of the 7th accused in the discharge application filed by him is that he signed and passed on receipts on behalf of the trust for the monies received by the trust in his capacity as an authorised person. The complaint is false and motivated. When his name did not figure in the first information report as well as in the statement of witnesses recorded at the first instance, he has been implicated to wreak vengeance as he chose to appear for the first accused. There was no threat communicated to the defacto complainant through the controversial letter. It is further contended that the process of law has been misused and abused by the Investigating Agency.

7. As regards the 5th accused Kalki Manoharan @ N.Manoharan, the prosecution has alleged that he along with the first accused extorted a sum of Rs.7 lakhs and odd in cash, silver, utensils, gold jewels etc. When the defacto complainant refused to pay a sum of rs.50,000/-, he was abused in filthy language and was threatened with dire consequences. The 5th accused has contended in his discharge petition that there was no specific overtact attributed to him. A false and motivated complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant in order to recover the amount given by him to the 5th accused, it is submitted.

8. The trial Judge, having