AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Hariprasad, J.—Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").
Petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery, which is numbered as C.C. No. 503 of 2013. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code(in short, "IPC").
Brief allegations in the complaint are as follows: The complainant subscribed to a chit bearing No. 5/2008 run by the 1st accused company. Besides, she subscribed to five other chits and her husband subscribed to four chits with the company. The complainant, who wanted to bid the said chitty, went to the office of the 1st accused company on 10.10.2012. She paid Rs. 1,41,164/- on that day after availing the One Time Settlement Scheme (in short, "OTS Scheme"). According to the petitioners, the complainant and her husband had defaulted the instalments starting from 23rd onwards and after availing the OTS Scheme, the defaulter had to clear the entire arrears of instalments upto the date of auction. For paying the said amount, the 1st accused company issued Annexure-A1 receipt. Thereafter, on 28.08.2013, the complainant went to the office of the 1st accused company for clearing the liability. When Annexure-A1 receipt was shown, the officers of the 1st accused company, viz., the other accused, informed the complainant that on 10.10.2012 she had not remitted Rs. 1,41,164/- as revealed from Annexure-A1 receipt, but she had remitted only Rs. 1,32,996/- on that date. It is the further averment in the complaint that the accused insinuated and insulted the complainant that Ext. A1 is a receipt falsely cooked up by the complainant and her husband. The complainant contended further that the staff of the 1st accused company threatened her that unless Annexure-A1 receipt was handed over to the Manager, they would file a criminal complaint against the complainant for forging false documents. Shocked and surprised by the attitude of the accused persons, the complainant did not pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the chitty account which she was ready to pay. She remitted the amount in Sugama account and went back. It is the allegation that she had paid Rs. 1,41,164/- on 10.10.2012 and the accused persons did not properly account for the same causing a loss of Rs. 8,168/- to the complainant. With these allegations, she filed Annexure-A6 complaint.
Heard Shri Lal George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and Shri A. Ranjith Narayanan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant. Shri N. Suresh, learned Public Prosecutor is also heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the accused are innocent and the accounts showed a wrong entry due to the defect in the computer system. To fortify this contention, a circular issued by the 1st accused company on 08.10.2012 was relied on. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the circular issued by the head office of the 1st accused company dated 08.10.2012 was received in the office only on 10.10.2012. The computer system could not be updated in tune with the circular received on the date of the alleged incident. Annexure-A3 is referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners to contend that the account pertaining to the complainant would show that on 10.10.2012, she was credited with an amount of Rs. 1,32,996/- and on 20.03.2013, two entries were made, viz., Rs. 7,184/- and Rs. 1,004/- to her credit with effect from 10.10.2012 and 20.03.2013 respectively. It was done after finding out the mistakes in the computer system. Learned counsel also produced for scrutiny the cash scroll of 10.10.2012 to contend that as the last entry, excess collection of Rs. 7,184/- is shown in the account. It was actually due to the fault of the computer system. According to him, there was no wilful or intentional act on the part of the accused persons to defraud or cheat the complainant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant submitted that only on account of filing the complaint on 05.03.2013, the accused persons reversed the entry and credited the amounts to the account of the complainant. It is also contended that if the complainant had not approached the court for redressal of grievances, the accused would not have credited the amount and thereby the complainant would have lost Rs. 8,168/- and also her reputation.
At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the offence under Section 477A IPC is also attracted in this case going by the allegations in the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners strongly opposed this contention by contending that the essential requirement for attracting an offence under Section 477A IPC is that there must be wilful and intentional act to defraud, destroy, alter, mutilate or falsify any book or valuable security or account belonging to the employer in the possession of the clerk. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no allegation in the complaint that there was any wilful act done by the accused 2 to 5 to defraud the complainant. Controverting this argument, learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has specifically averred that the accused persons, with an intention to cause unlawful loss to the complainant and also to make unlawful gain to them, disowned Annexure-A1 receipt when it was produced for scrutiny at a later time. However, I am of the view that whether there was a wilful or intentional attempt to defraud, alter or falsify the account is a matter to be proved at the time of investigation. It is an admitted case that the complaint is at a nascent stage. On account of the stay order passed by this Court, the investigation has not advanced in this matter. Since the vexed questions cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I do not venture to resolve the issue at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, without making any observation regarding the merits of the rival contentions, I find that the petitioners can take recourse to law at a later point of time, if the investigation reveals any complicity of them in this matter.
With this observation, the Crl.M.C. is closed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.