Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 592
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. ILANGOVAN, J.
P. Manickavel - Appellant
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police, Tuticorin & Another - Respondents
Crl. OP(MD)No. 13098 of 2022 Crl. MP(MD)No. 8336 of 2022
Decided On : 29-03-2023
For the Petitioner:V. Karthikeyan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, B. Nambiselvan, Additional Public Prosecutor, R2, No appearance.
The main legal point established is that the continuation of criminal prosecution may not be proper if there is no possibility to convict the accused and if expert reports and lack of evidence support the accused's innocence.
Headnote:
Quashment - Criminal Prosecution - The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner based on expert report indicating that the petitioner did not sign the disputed cheque, lack of evidence, and the purpose of the complaint being served by the expert report.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a custodian of a disputed cheque, was accused of misappropriation. The expert report indicated that the petitioner did not sign the cheque, and there was a lack of evidence to support the criminal prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the continuation of the criminal prosecution may not be proper as there was no possibility to convict the petitioner based on the expert report and lack of evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged misappropriation of funds through a disputed cheque, the involvement of the petitioner as a custodian of the cheque, and the lack of evidence to support the criminal prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the expert report indicating that the petitioner did not sign the disputed cheque, lack of evidence to convict the petitioner, and the purpose of the complaint being served by the expert report.
Final Decision: The criminal original petition was allowed, and the FIR against the petitioner was quashed based on the lack of evidence and the expert report indicating that the petitioner did not sign the disputed cheque.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.72 of 2019, dated 03/11/2019 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No.72 of 2019, dated 03/11/2019 on the file of the 1st respondent.
2. The facts in brief:-
The de-facto complainant was the Block Development Officer of Pudur Panchayat Union, Vilathikulam Taluk. He lodged a complaint stating that a sum of Rs.1,68,300/- has been misappropriated through a cheque without proper authorisation. Over which, a report has been received requesting proper investigation by registering the FIR. So, he lodged a complaint.
3. It is further stated that the alleged cheque was bearing No.620739 and it was issued in favour of one Lakshmi Electrical Company, on 13/08/2018. Later that amount was redeposited by the Secretary namely A3, on 01/10/2018. Since it is a temporary misappropriation, all the persons, who are involved in the above said offence must be enquired. During the Departmental Enquiry, A1 and A2 have stated that they have not signed in the above said disputed cheque. To find out the truth only, as per the instructions given by the District Collector, he lodged the above said complaint.
4. In the complaint, this petitioner was arrayed as A2 and the investigation has been undertaken. During the course of investigation, this petitioner as well as A1, who was working as Block Development Officer alleged to have signed in the above said disputed cheque, also appeared before the 1st respondent police and gave statement that they have not signed in the above said disputed cheque. On that account, sample signatures have been collected and sent for expert examination.
5. In pursuance of the above said request made by the Investigating Officer through the Court, the Hand Writing Expert attached to Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Library, Chennai also sent a report to the Court, which is also available on record.
6. Now pointing out this development, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even as per the case of the prosecution, the above said misappropriated amount was repaid to the Government Account by A3; A3 was terminated from service because of the above said malpractice; In the course of enquiry by the Department, it was found that this petitioner and A1 were the custodians of the cheque book. So without their knowledge, A3 would not have used the cheque and misappropriated the amount.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that even though, in the report of the Hand Writing Expert, it has been stated that this petitioner has not signed in the disputed document, other evidences are available. So according to him, the connivance of this petitioner is also noticed during the course of investigation.
8. But perusal of the records in the form CD file does not indicate any involvement of this petitioner as well as A1 in the above said misappropriation of the amount.
9. No doubt, this petitioner and A1 are the custodians of the disputed cheque and responsible for the financial transactions. If any lapse has been committed by them, they ought to have been proceeded Departmentally. But for attracting the criminal prosecution, enough materials must be available. But instead, the complaint was given by the de-facto complainant that too for finding of the truth. No other materials are available.
10. The Expert report was also supporting the case of this petitioner. In the Expert report, it has been pointed out that the disputed signature was not made by this petitioner, so also A1. There is no positive indication in the report also, supporting the case of the prosecution. Since the purpose, for which the above said complaint given by the de-facto complainant has been served by wa
