Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2275
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
Prince Coirs through Proprietor, A. Noordhin – Petitioner
Versus
The Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai – Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) Nos. 5361 to 5374 of 2018
Decided On : 01-08-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Anand.
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Chandrasekaran.
Mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible.
Headnote:
FIR Registration - Alleged Fraudulent Scheme - IPC Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w. 120(B) - The court dismissed the petitions seeking direction to register FIRs against accused for alleged fraudulent scheme involving substandard machineries and embezzlement of government funds. The court held that the complaint lacked merit as it was filed belatedly, failed to provide necessary documentation, and did not take timely action against the accused. The court emphasized that registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence, but in this case, no preliminary inquiry was permissible.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought direction to register their complaints as FIRs, alleging a fraudulent scheme involving substandard machineries and embezzlement of government funds. The complaint was filed belatedly, lacked necessary documentation, and failed to take timely action against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the complaint lacked merit and emphasizing the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence.
Issues: Delay in filing complaint, lack of necessary documentation, failure to take timely action against accused, and the mandatory registration of FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petitions seeking direction to register FIRs were dismissed by the court.
1. Heard Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M. Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
2. These Original Petitions have been filed to direct the respondents to register the petitioners' complaint dated 17.07.2017 and 12.03.2018 as F.I.R.
3. Though the petitioners are different, the respondents and the issues are one and the same, all these petitions are heard together and are disposed of by a common order. For a sake of convenience, the narration of facts as stated in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5361 of 2018 is being discussed in this order.
4. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that on 17.07.2017 and on 12.03.2018, the petitioners lodged a complaint respectively before the third respondent herein. During the year 2006 to 2007, the Ministry of Industry has come forward with the scheme with an intention to uplift the agriculturists to manufacture coir products. The first accused namely, Central Coir Board has to identify the beneficiaries and the fourth accused/Indian Bank has to sanction the loan. It is stated that only 10% share will have to be invested by the beneficiaries and the remaining amount would be borne by the Central Government. The petitioner is also one of the beneficiaries.
5. They were considered for sanctioning of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as loan and accordingly in loan Account No. 732630189, the same has been sanctioned in which a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- was meant for purchasing machineries and sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- was meant for purchasing raw materials. In his part, he has also invested a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as his share.
6. Prior to the disbursal of the said loan, the first accused has to certify the standard of the Engineering Company. The accused conspired together to swindle the Government amount. The first accused created fifth accused Company which is not in existence. There is no Registration Certificate or TIN Number available. These fictitious companies were made only for looting the Government money. It is stated that after the raw materials came, the fifth accused has installed the machineries in the petitioner's site and the petitioner found out that all those machineries were second handed and used and most of the same were not in working condition. The fifth accused has informed the petitioner that it is only a temporary erection and after some point of time, he will replace it by installing the new machineries. But he failed to fulfill his words. The petitioner have started his productions. But the products are not upto the standard and the petitioner approached the third accused for arranging new machineries and thereby, he came to understand that all the accused joined together and a fraud has been committed. As a temporary measure the accused have set up the above said Engineering companies purely with an ideal of embezzling the Government money and that is the reason why the said ready - made companies were being closed soon after the disbursement of loan.
7. The accused persons, by creating number of forged documents in the name of implementing the public welfare scheme, they have in some cases supplied poor quality machineries and in some cases no machinery has been provided. The petitioner has been classified as a defaulter of loan and the Bank appears to have initiated recovery proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner came to know about the fraud only belatedly when the bankers concerned have started their initiatives towards recovery of the loan and on verification, the petitioner came to understand that not only the petitioner, there are nearly about 50 persons who have also been made as an instrument by the accused persons for the purpose of misappropriating the public money. Infact in some case, borrowers are said to have approached the Civil Court for safeguarding their interest. The said modus of the accused persons clearly made out the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w. 120
