V.Baskaran, & Anr. vs K.M.Rathinam

This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 18 of 2010 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli as against the petitioner/A2.

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner''s younger brother by name V.Nambirajan figured as A1 in the private complaint married the

complainant''s daughter by name Kavitha on 06.02.2003. The spouses went to U.S.A. and settled there. They were blessed with a daughter by

name Darshika in 2003 in U.S.A. and as such, the daughter is also a citizen of U.S.A. Unfortunately, the daughter of the complainant Kavitha met

with a motor car accident in U.S.A. on 28.05.2006 and died. The dead body was brought to India and was cremated. Their daughter Darshika

was left with the custody of the complainant. In 2007, when Nambirajan came back to India, the complainant and his wife pleaded to take back

the child, but, the accused refused. Thereafter, the complainant preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate alleging that the petitioner and

his brother did not return 150 sovereign of gold jewels and when A1 went to the house of complainant, he threatened his family members and

refused to return the gold jewels and silver items. The private complaint has been made with allegation that accused took away the gold jewels and

silver articles given to Kavitha and failed to return them and the same attracts to an offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. The same has

been taken cognizance in C.C.No.18 of 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli. To invoke the provision under Section 406 of

I.P.C., there must be entrustment for a specific purpose and if the entrustment is proved even then it has to be established that the property so

entrusted was converted to any other purpose other than the purpose, for which it was entrusted. After the demise of Kavitha, the locker in the

joint name of Kavitha and first accused was not even opened as the bank has not given duplicate key of the locker, after the loss of the key during

funeral time. Therefore, the offence alleged in the private complaint is not made out and therefore, the complaint has to be quashed, as against the

petitioner/A2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence as alleged in the private complaint is not made out as against the petitioner/A2;

that there is no material for entrustment or conversion of the same for some other purpose and therefore, the proceedings before the Judicial

Magistrate in C.C.No.18 of 2010 is to be quashed as against the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, contends that offence of intimidation under Section 506(1) of I.P.C., is made out as against

the petitioner/A2 and that the Judicial Magistrate, after analysing the statements of complainant and three other witnesses recorded under Section

200 of Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offences as mentioned therein as he was satisfied the offences are made out. It is further contended that the

petitioner has suppressed the fact that he preferred revision before the District and Sessions Judge against the order of the Judicial Magistrate

taking the private complaint on file. Therefore, this criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioner has filed this criminal original petition as if the private complaint has been taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate for the offence

under Section 406 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner/A2. The petitioner has not filed the order of the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the

offence on the basis of the private complaint. Statement of witnesses have also not been filed along with the petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of this Court the order of the District Court, Tiruchirappalli made in

Crl.R.PNo.42 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein, wherein, the Additional District Judge has upheld the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate

taking cognizance of the offence for criminal intimidation as against the petitioner/A2 herein.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that filing revision before the District Court does not take away the right to approach this

Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. No doubt, availing remedy of revision of Sessions Judge will not prohibit or bar a person from invoking

power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Here, the petitioner has suppressed the above fact that he availed the remedy in the revisional

jurisdiction before the Sessions Court. Without disclosing the fact that cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate for criminal intimidation as

against the petitioner, he has canvassed in this criminal original petition as if cognizance was taken as against the petitioner for the offence under

Section 406 of I.P.C. The order of the District Judge dated 20.07.2011 in Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2010 is clear that offence of criminal intimidation is

made out as against the petitioner herein from the statements recorded by the Judicial Magistrate from the witnesses. Suppressing the facts, the

petitioner filed this petition only to drag on the proceedings and therefore, the petitioner alone abused the process of Court. This Court does not

find any abuse of process of Court in taking the private complaint on file by the Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the complaint given by the

defacto complainant. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.