AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C.No.142 of 2008 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same.
It is averred in the petition that the second respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner and one S.Karthikeyan for
the offences under Sections 420, 468, 477(A) and 120(B) of I.P.C. The first respondent registered the case and after investigation, laid charge
sheet as against the petitioner and S.Karthikeyan for the above said offences. The allegation is that the petitioner along with S.Karthikeyan were
running a jewellery shop in the name and style of Sindhu Jewellers and obtained a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the defacto complainant as a loan. The
post dated cheques given to them belong to the petitioner herein, but the same were signed by S.Karthikeyan.
It is further averred that the first accused S.Karthikeyan is brother-in-law of the petitioner and the petitioner offered his assistance to enable him
to come out of the financial problem. S.Karthikeyan obtained a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as hand loan from the defacto complainant and when the
question of returning the money arose, the said Karthiyekan had used the cheques of the petitioner without his knowledge by forging the signature
of the petitioner. The said S.Karthikeyan has also filed insolvency petition making the defacto complainant as a respondent. The dispute in hand is
purely civil in nature and criminal colour has been given. In order to grab money, the petitioner has also been included in the case and therefore, the
proceedings as against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without the knowledge of the petitioner, the cheque leaves of the petitioner was utilised by
S.Karthikeyan; that no offences as alleged by the prosecution are made out as against the petitioner and the said Karthikeyan had also filed
insolvency petition, arraying the defacto complainant as one of the respondents and therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioner are to be
quashed.
The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) interalia contends that as per the materials filed along with the charge sheet, offences as
alleged against the petitioner are made out; that the other accused S.Karthikeyan passed away and therefore, the petitioner is to be dismissed.
Second respondent appeared before this Court last hearing and advanced his arguments in the same line as put forth by the learned Government
Advocate (criminal side) today.
The charge sheet has been laid as against the petitioner herein and one S.Karthikeyan alleging that both of them took a loan from the defacto
complainant and they presented post dated cheques for repayment and when the defacto complainant presented the post dated cheques, it was
found that the cheque leaves belonging to the petitioner were found signed by the first accused S.Karthikeyan and therefore, both of them
committed the offences as mentioned in the charge sheet.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without his knowledge, S.Karthikeyan, brother-inlaw of the petitioner
took the cheque leaves and gave it to the defacto complainant by putting the signature himself and therefore, the petitioner is in no way concerned
with the crime. But, the materials placed before this Court disclose that both the petitioner as well as the other accused together approached the
defacto complainant and got the loan and they together gave the cheque leaves to the defacto complainant. Therefore, offences as charge sheeted
are made out even as against the petitioner. Filing of the insolvency petition by the other accused Karthikeyan does not absolve the petitioner from
his criminal liability. It is also pertinent to note that the person, who filed insolvency petition has also passed away. Therefore, there is no merit in
the contention of the petitioner and therefore, this criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.