Dismissal of private complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. due to the petitioner's defense being substantiated in another case.

1. This revision has been preferred praying against the order, dated 17.05.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.3407 of 2014, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.

2. The revision petitioner is the private complainant. He filed a private complaint seeking prosecution of the respondent for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The trial Court, after recording the sworn statement, has found that the 2nd respondent prior to filing of the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein, has filed STC.No.676 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, against the revision petitioner seeking prosecution for the alleged commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, contending among other things that the revision petitioner herein has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and also issued a cheque for the said sum drawn on State Bank of India, Kalkulam Branch and the said Cheque, on presentation, has got dishonoured for the reason, “Funds Insufficient”. A statutory notice was also issued on 08.09.2012 for which, the revision petitioner is arrayed as an Accused in the said complaint, issued reply dated 25.09.2012 raising false and untenable contentions against the complainant. The trial Court taking note of the said aspect has found that it is very well open to him to raise the said points, as defence, in the case in STC.No.676 of 2012 and the private complaint is devoid of merits and therefore, dismissed the same under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 17.05.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is field by the private complainant.

3. Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the private complaint filed by the complainant and would submit that the petitioner herein joined the chit viz., 'K.B.N.Chit Fund”, which is owned by the first respondent viz.,Baskaran Nair and he has paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and on the 13th instalment he took part in the auction and got a sum of Rs.78,000/- and towards the security for the same, he issued a blank cheque, bearing No.526184 drawn on State Bank of India, Kalkulam Branch, in favour of the first respondent herein. It is further contended that the first accused has asking him to give a false evidence in the suit in O.S.No. 6 of 2012 instituted on the file of Court of Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, since it was refused, he utilized the signed blank Cheque and filed a false complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by utilizing the services of the 2nd respondent and thus, the act of both the accused clearly made out a case for the prosecution under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and the said vital aspect has been completely overlooked by the lower Court, while dismissing the private complaint and hence, prays for interference.

4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the typed set of papers as well as the impugned order.

5. A scrutiny of the contents of the private complaint filed by the petitioner would disclose that he has not given the relevant date as to when he has joined the chit and when he given the signed the blank cheque and the date on which he made repeated requests / demand to the first respondent viz., Baskaran Nair, to return the cheque. It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture that prior to filing of the private complaint by the petitioner herein, the 2nd respondent has filed STC.No.676 of 2012, on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kuzhithurai seeking prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Installments Act and perusal of the said complaint would also disclose that in response to the statutory notice sent by the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner caused a reply taking the very same defence. The lower Court has taken into co