Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1618
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Tharani, J.
V. Muthukrishanan – Petitioner
Versus
Thavamony Stephen Jeyaraj – Respondent
Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 628 of 2020 & Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 5917 of 2020
Decided On : 22-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Velrajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:G. Aravinthan, Advocate.
The duty of the petitioner to disprove the case of the complainant and the timing of filing the petition were central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Dismissal of petition under Cr.P.C. - Sections 397(1) r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. - [138 of Negotiable Instruments Act] - [138] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the relevance of documents related to property transactions and investments, the duty of the petitioner to disprove the case of the complainant, and the timing of filing the petition. The court highlighted the necessity of marking certain documents, the presumption available in favor of the respondent, and the belated filing of the petition. The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's failure to mark documents at the trial stage and the belated filing of the petition.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, filed a petition to set aside an order passed in a criminal appeal. The petitioner claimed that certain documents related to property transactions and investments were relevant to the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents listed by the petitioner were not necessary for deciding the case, as the transactions were already admitted by the respondent. The court also noted the belated filing of the petition and the petitioner's failure to mark the documents at the trial stage.
Issues: Relevance of documents related to property transactions and investments, duty of the petitioner to disprove the case of the complainant, and the timing of filing the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of marking certain documents, the presumption available in favor of the respondent, and the belated filing of the petition.
Final Decision: The criminal revision case was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397(1) r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4871 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.62 of 2019 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.)
1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 4871 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.62 of 2019 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in the case registered under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.62 of 2019, which is pending before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, the revision petitioner herein filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.4871 of 2020 under 391 of Cr.P.C. That petition was dismissed by the District Court. Against which, the petitioner has preferred this revision case.
3. The brief substance of the petition filed by the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No. 4871 of 2020 is as follows :-
The respondent/complainant is residing abroad. He used to invest money in properties and other business, as per the directions of the petitioner. During the year 2009 – 2011, the revision petitioner purchased immovable properties in the name of the complainant and his wife. On the guidance of the complainant, the petitioner entered into an agreement with one Nagarajan and invested Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The petitioner has also invested Rs.71,00,000/- with the said Nagarajan. The said Nagarajan committed fraud and caused loss to the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Thiruvariyur Police Station. The petitioner has filed a civil case before this Court in C.S.No.25 of 2015 and the case was admitted by this Court. FIR and decree are to be marked in this case. The complainant to forgo the loss in the business, has pressurised the petitioner to execute a sale deed regarding the properties that belong to D.W.1, Nambi, the wife of the petitioner and the younger brother of the petitioner. He insisted the petitioner to execute two cheque leaves. The petitioner did not execute any cheque leaves under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque leaves were handed over to the complainant only on compulsion. The petitioner alone can give evidence on those facts. Ex.A1 cannot be treated as negotiable an instrument at all. The documents 6 to 10 alone can prove that sale deeds were executed in favour of the complainant. The petitioner is duty bound to disprove the case of the complainant and hence, an opportunity to mark the documents and to examine the petitioner has to be given.
4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P.No. 4871 of 2020 is as follows : -
4.1. This petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings. The documents are not relevant for deciding the case. The petitioner has to file a petition under Section 315 of Cr.P.C., to examine himself as a witness. Though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to examine himself as a witness, the petitioner did not come forward to examine himself. The trial Court has observed that the petitioner did not come forward to examine himself as a witness.
4.2. Though the documents mentioned by the petitioner are available with him even at the time of trial, he has failed to file this petition till 2019. Even when the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he has not elicited any reason for not filing all those documents.
4.3. The trial Court has already dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.10035 of 2014 regarding the filing of documents relating to one Nagarajan. The petitioner filed a revision in Crl.R.C.No.5 of 2015 and the same was also dismissed by this Court. In the complaint against Nagarajan, there is no wordings relating to any amount given by this respondent/complainant. The trial Court has observed that there is no connection between Nagaraj
