IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sunder Mohan, J.
S. Ravichandran and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
M.V. Ramani – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 21169 of 2019 and Crl.M.P. Nos. 15838 & 10954 of 2019
Decided On : 09-03-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 403, 405, 408, 409, 420, 421, 422, 425, 466, 467, 571, 477, 477A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fees Act,) 2009 - Societies Registration Act - Seeking to call for records - Punishment for criminal conspiracy - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for records and quash C.C. pending on file of learned XVII Judicial Magistrate - Held, To sum up, impugned complaint which spells out alleged irregularities in the maintenance of accounts by office bearers and auditors does not disclose as to what is monetary loss caused to Society or School by alleged acts of petitioners - Earlier, respondent / complainant was part of board during academic, when excess fee was allegedly collected - His grievance is that auditors A7 and A8 had shown it as 'Contingency' - Court is unable to comprehend as to how this would constitute an offence - To prosecute a person for a property offence, it has to be shown that acts were either done 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently' within meaning of Sections 24 sand 25 of Indian Penal Code - None of it has been alleged - That apart, from various proceedings, it can be seen that impugned complaint is malicious and vexatious - Therefore, impugned complaint deserves to be quashed not only because it does not disclose any offence but also because it is vexatious and malicious - Impugned complaint is clearly an abuse of process of law - Criminal Original Petition allowed.
ORDER :
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records and quash the C.C. No. 2563 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned XVII Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused 1 to 8 in a private complaint filed by the respondent / complainant herein for the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 403, 405, 408, 409, 420, 421, 422, 425, 466, 467, 571, 477 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The first to fifth petitioners are the office bearers of Sri Ram Samaj Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (herein after referred to as 'Society' for the sake of convenience). The sixth petitioner is the Secretary of Sri Sitaram Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School, West Mambalam which is administered and run by the Society. The seventh and eighth petitioners are the Chartered Accountants by profession and the Statutory Auditors of the Society.
2.The respondent / complainant is a life member of the Society who was admitted in the year 1988. It is his case that the petitioners had committed fraudulent acts in the management of the Society. The Society runs a School under the name and style of Sri Sitaram Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School (herein after referred to as 'School' for the sake of convenience). The said School had collected excess fees for the academic years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012- 2013 totaling a sum of Rs.1,03,35,000/-. The Private Schools Fee Determination Committee constituted under the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fees Act,) 2009 found that the School had collected excess fee and directed the School to refund the excess fee collected from the students. It is further the case of the respondent / complainant that A7 and A8 who are the Statutory Auditors for the said Society had kept the funds which were supposed to be refunded to the students under 'Contingency Fund' which is incorrect. The complaint further enumerates the defects in the balance sheets certified by A7 and A8, thereby suggesting that the petitioners had committed the offences of falsification of accounts and misappropriation.
3.(i) Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent / complainant is a vexatious litigant and has been harassing the office bearers of the Society and the School by filing various unnecessary litigations which are adversely affecting the smooth functioning of the Society and the School. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners listed out about 25 cases filed by the respondent / complainant before various forums including this Court by way of Writ Petitions and that in all cases, the complaints were closed by either holding that the complaint is not maintainable or false, besides recording that the respondent / complainant has vexatiously initiated the proceedings. The details of the cases filed by the respondent / complainant from the year 2004 till date have been produced by the learned Senior Counsel to show the manner in which the Society and the School and its office bearers have been targeted by the respondent / complainant.
(ii)The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 23800 of 2014, wherein this Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent / complainant with costs stating that the Writ Petition was an abuse of process. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner prayed for restraining the President of the Society and the Principal of the School from running the School and to refund the excess fee collected since 2010-2011 up to date and directing the authorities to seal and demolish the existing superstructure of the Society. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prayer to demolish the school building is sufficient to show that he had no interest in the Society or the School as claimed by him.
(iii)The learned Senior Counsel further submitted th
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Maintainability of complaints - Complaints filed by complainants-respondents 4 and 5 and also proceedings initiated thereupon by the official respondents are legally not sustainable an....
The Fee Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating complaints post-enactment of the Punjab Regulation of Fee of Unaided Educational Institutions Act, 2016, leading to the quashing of its ord....
Point of Law : The specific objection on locus standi of petitioner to initiate Public Interest Litigation is not denied. The person prosecuting public interest litigation should not have any interes....
Absence during inspections does not prove student admissions are bogus; proper evidence must be considered before imposing liability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 362 of Cr.P.C to determine the abuse of process of law.
Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should adopt a judicial hands off if case revolves around disputed questions of fact as Court would not become a fact finding authority at ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.