Accused can give evidence as P.W.

This is a petition filed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash, the proceedings in C.C.No.513 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

2. The respondent herein preferred a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee on 6.9.1983 against the petitioner impleading him as the Treasurer of Shree Jain Sangh, Villivakkam and against three others, viz. (1) Shree Jain Sangh, Villivakkam, represented by its President Fathelal Ji, (2) Fathelal Ji, son of Sathya Danjee, President, Shree Jain Sangh, Villivakkam and (3) Ramlalji, son of Abeckand, Secretary, Shree Jain Sangh, Villivakkam for the alleged offences under Sec.56 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act and under Sec.403 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and learned Magistrate took the complaint on file on 14.9.1983 against the petitioner alone for the said offences.

3. The allegation in the complaint were that the body corporate represented by its President Fathelalji, and the other office bearers of Shree Jain Sangh canvassed subscriptions for a chit for Rs.30,000 to be run by the Sangh. The respondent was also approached and it was represented that the Sangh had obtained the necessary legal sanction for the running of the said chit. The respondents believing the said representation agreed to subscribe as one of the members of the said chit and joined the chit transaction and he started making payment of monthly instalments at Rs.1,500 each. The first chit was auctioned on 5.6.1982 and dividend was paid to the respondent. He was stated to have regularly paid the subscriptions upto 5.2.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner and other office bearers refused to receive the contribution from the respondent and continued the auction without the respondent’s subscription. The respondent demanded the amount subscribed by him, less the dividends paid to him. Since the office bearers of the Sangh inclusive of the petitioner did not oblige him in returning the amounts subscribed by him, he was compelled to take recourse under law, in the sense by filing a complaint.

4. Though the complaint was taken on file only against the petitioner, the respondent did not at all pursue the matter further by filing any revision before the competent forum against the order of discharge made by learned Magistrate of the other three accused against whom also complaint had been filed. Pursuant to the orders of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee transmitted the records of this case on 12.10.1983 to learned Judicial II Class Magistrate No.I, Saidapet for further proceedings. At this stage, it appears that the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.6880 of 1985 before this Court for a direction to summon additional witnesses and also obtained stay of further proceedings. Subsequent to this dismissal of the said Crl.M.P. and subsequent to the upgradation of learned Judicial II Class Magistrate and constitution of the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Ambattur, the records of this case were transmitted to learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and case is now pending in C.C.No.513 of 1988. It appears that the respondent examined himself as P.W.1, besides examining another witness viz. P.W.2.

5. The respondent appeared to have been adopting dilatory tactics for not proceeding further with the case, in the sense of examination of further witnesses and consequently, the matter had been adjourned several times. When the petitioner’s counsel pressed for action to be takes under Sec.204 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dismissal of the complaint, the respondent appeared to have taken out process for examination of the petitioner-accused as a witness on his behalf and the Magistrate also appeared to have issued process therefore. At this stage, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would press the following points for consideration.

(1) The issuance of th