A Criminal Revision Case challenging a Docket Order that dismissed a complaint. The Court noted prior quashing of the case due to lack of material and inadmissible evidence, holding that directing cognizance on false allegations is not warranted.
The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed; impugned Docket Order upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
Crl.R.C. No. 1669 of 2007
O R D E R:-
Challenging the Docker Order dated 18.01.2006 dismissing the complaint on the ground that there is no material to take cognizance of the case against the accused and that the complainant was absent on the date of his chief-examination, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that A2 herein filed Criminal Petition before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No. 31 of 2001 which was allowed.
A perusal of the material on record would show that originally the informant – complainant lodged a report to the police based on which the case was investigated into. After examining the witnesses, the police referred the case as civil in nature. The referred charge sheet filed by the police show that the complaint came to be filed on 06.02.2001.
The gist of the allegations made in the complaint is that A1 is a Branch Manager in M/s.Patel Roadways Limited, Aminsahebpeta Branch Office, who was authorized to deal with the matters on behalf of the company. A2 herein is a Managing Director of M/s.Patel Roadways Limited Company, Head Office, Mumbai. Due to shortfall of funds to perform the regular work in despatching the consignments to its destinations, the Head Office of the Company instructed to obtain private loans from the local market to meet the
2 CPK,J CrlRC_1669_2007
needs of the transportation business. As per the instructions of the company, A1 borrowed a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh on interest on 01.01.1999 from the complainant and passed a receipt promising to return the same to the complainant on or before 31.12.1999, but failed to repay the said amount to the complainant. It is further alleged that A2 also borrowed huge amounts through A1 in the local market to meet the transactions of their branch office. A2 was forcibly sent to A1 to tamper the records of the company to defraud the creditors at Ichapuram for Aminsahebpeta Branch Office. Having regard to the above allegations the complaint came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 407, 418, 422 and 420 read with 120 IPC. It appears that the said case was taken on file as C.C.No. 31 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ichapuram.
A perusal of the complaint shows that the list of documents filed are Xerox copies of receipts issued by A1 in favour of the complainant and the acknowledgement letters issued by A2. However, the list of witnesses were shown as nil. The list of documents which are made the basis to file the complainant are not placed on record before this Court. Even otherwise, document No.1, which is xerox copy of the receipt in favour of the complainant, cannot be looked into as the same is inadmissible in evidence. In the absence of the same, there is no other evidence to prove the allegations in the complaint. In fact, the learned counsel for the complainant clearly stated that the case against A2 was quashed by this Court.
3 CPK,J
CrlRC_1669_2007
Having regard to the above fact, the question of directing the trial Court to take cognizance of the case on the basis of the allegations which are already found to be false does not arise. Hence, the impugned Docket Order does not warrant any direction or interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
05.02.2020
bcj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned Docket Order dismissing the complaint should be set aside to direct the trial Court to take cognizance.
Whether there is material on record to take cognizance of the case against the accused given the absence of documentary evidence.
Unrepresented party
Accused (A2)
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
