Masilamani vs G. Ranganathan and K. Panneerselvam

Maheswaran, J.—Masilamani, the petitioner in this petition, seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482, Crl. P.C., to

quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1052 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Salem. That criminal case arises out of a

complaint given by one Ranganathan who is a partner of M/s. Yuvaraj Corporation, a registered firm, doing money-lending business. The case

against the petitioner, (who was arrayed as first accused in the complaint) and another, was that both the accused came on 17th August, 1985 and

produced post dated cheques with the date 30th September, 1985 for Rs. 9,000 drawn on the Bank of India, Erode, and signed by the petitioner,

the first accused, as partner of Sri Rajeswari Textiles, and wanted cash. Believing the representation made by the accused and as the second

accused was already known to the firm, a sum of Rs. 8,621 was paid after discount and when the cheque was presented for encashment at

Lakshmi Vilas Bank on 30th September, 1985, the cheque was returned with an endorsement that Sri Rajeswari Textiles, of which the petitioner

was the proprietor, has closed the accounts in the Bank as early as on 28th December, 1983.

The complainant''s case is that both the accused have played fraud on the complainant and made Ranganathan to part with a sum of Rs. 8,621

and both the accused knew even at the time when the cheque was presented that the account of the first accused has been closed with the Bank of

India and therefore he has given a complaint which the petitioner seeks to quash.

The case of the petitioner on the other hand is that the post dated cheque was not dated and that it was given on 30th September, 1982 and not

on 30th September, 1985 as alleged in the complaint and that on that date the accounts were not closed and therefore the criminal case pending

before the Judicial First Class Magistrate given by the complainant should be quashed. The further ease of the petitioner is that no money was

received in cash. It is also pointed out by the petitioner''s counsel that Ranganathan, the first respondent has filed a civil suit for recovery! of the

money and therefore criminal proceeding cannot lie.

These objections are not well-founded. The question whether the cheque was dated 30th September, 1985, or whether it was ante dated is a

matter for the Magistrate to decide. So also the question whether the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 8,621 after discount is also for the

Magistrate to decide. These are questions which cannot be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under S. 482, Crl. P.C. It is sufficient

to point out that the complaint, when read, prima facie discloses an offence. When once the complaint discloses an offence, the inherent jurisdiction

of this Court under S. 482, Crl. P.C., cannot be invoked.

As regards the second contention that a criminal case is not maintainable when a civil suit for recovery is filed, I may at once point out that the

two remedies are not mutually exclusive, but clearly co-extensive and essentially differ in content and consequence. In Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj

Kumar and Another, , the Supreme Court has pointed out that there are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by

side and that the object of criminal law is to punish the offender who commits an offence against a person or property or the State for which the

accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life, but that does not however affect the civil remedies at all

for suing a wrong doer in cases like arson, accidents etc., and that it is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal

prosecution is completely barred. The Supreme Court further pointed out that the two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and

import. The objection, therefore, is not well-founded. The petition under S. 482 of the Crl. P.C., is therefore dismissed.