Dismissed

K.E.Jayaraman, v. R.Balakrishnan

Madras HC15 Jul 2013CRL RC/596/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal revision seeking orders for further investigation. The Court upheld the trial Court's view that the authenticity of alleged false documents is a civil issue not suitable for criminal determination, rejecting grounds for reversing the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed and the order of the trial Court dated 18.01.2006 was confirmed.

K.E.Jayaraman, Vs R.Balakrishnan — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15 / 07 /2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.596 of 2006

¶6

K.E.Jayaraman ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Balakrishnan
2.T.Narayanan
3.A.Madanagopal
4.D.Rajasekaran ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C., against the order of dismissal dated 18.01.2006 made in
C.M.P.No.1647 of 2005 passed by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondent : No appearance
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein has filed a case under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent herein/accused
stating that all the accused had committed was an offence of
cheating and criminal breach of trust, punishable under Section
409, 420 and 120(B) of IPC. The revision petitioner stated that
the first accused was inducted as a management trustee of the said
temple in the year 1986. Due to completion of his term of
trusteeship in the year 1991 and non-relinquishment of his post as
management trustee and also rampant corruption committed by him in
the administration of the said temple, the members of Balija
Chetty Community of Saidapet had passed a resolution during their
meeting held on 26.11.2000 to remove the first accused from the
Management Trusteeship of the said temple as he had
misappropriated the huge amount collected by the temple for his
personal benefits.

¶7

The complainant further stated that based on the criminal complaint lodged by one Mr.A.N.Damodaran, the former advisor and Court trustee of the said temple, the first accused was arrested and remanded into judicial custody in Cr.No.X Cr.719 of 2001, on the file of Central Crime Branch, Egmore for

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

misappropriation of the said temple funds to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- for his personal gain. The first accused, in connivance with the other three accused created false documents and alienated the properties situated at No.63, Perumal Koil Street, Saidapet, Chennai for their personal gains. Further, all the accused created false documents and leased out the properties to the various persons and also sold the property by a registered sale deed. As such, all the accused persons have connived together and alienated the temple property for their personal gain. Hence, the complainant has filed the Crl.M.P.No.99 of 2005 and prayed before the learned Magistrate to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, to cause an investigation by forwarding this report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to file a final report.

¶10

At this stage, the complainant has filed C.M.P.No.1647 of 2005, to direct further investigation to take the case on file and issue process to the accused since the final report referring the case as civil in nature should not be given any consideration and the case may be directed for further investigation by collection of all materials and examination of witnesses for a right decision. After hearing the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and on scrutinizing the complaint, the said petition was dismissed.

¶11

Against the said dismissal of the above petition, the revision has been filed.

¶12

It has been submitted on the grounds of revision that the contention that the learned Magistrate had wrongly viewed that the accused was elected trustee. It was also submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to note that the election of the accused as trustee has already been challenged before the competent Court. After completion of his term, which had been completed in the year 1991, the first accused connived with the other accused and sold some property and leased out some properties belonging to the temple for their personal gain. As such, all the accused have committed offence u/s. 409, 420, 120(B) of I.P.C. The criminal case has been registered against the accused by the Central Crime Branch since there is a prima facie case against the accused for cheating and criminal breach of trust, with mala-fide intention. It was also contended that the learned Magistrate failed to note that for administration of trust, already appropriate civil proceedings have been initiated and for punishment for criminal breach of trust and misappropriation, the remedy is criminal prosecution. The learned counsel has further raised the grounds that there can be parallel proceedings in civil Court and criminal Court depending upon the relief sought for and as such, the learned Magistrate erred in law in thinking that the criminal Court can do nothing in this aspect.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds laid down in the revision and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the trial Court's order. Further, this Court is of the view that the complainant had alleged that the accused are in connivance with each other and cheated the temple property, fraudulently by transferring the civil rights and lease hold rights in favour of the third parties after receiving a huge amount. In support of this allegation, the complainant had listed five documents which have been registered in the year 1991 and 1993. The criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed in the year 2001 and 2003. As such, the complaint had been filed by the complainant after a long delay. Further, the question of authenticity of the 'created' documents have to be determined by a civil Court, after framing necessary issues. Therefore, this Court does not find any force in the contentions made by the counsel in the revision.

¶15

In the result, the above revision is dismissed and the order passed in C.M.P.No.1647 of 2005 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 18.01.2006 is confirmed. Accordingly ordered. Sd/ Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub.Asst.Registrar r n s To

¶16

The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.15

¶17

do thro the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai-8

¶18

Crl.R.C.No.596 of 2006

¶19

RSK (CO) kk 29/7

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.E.Jayaraman, v. R.Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.E.Jayaraman, v. R.Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.K.Ashok Vs K.Puttusamy

D.Kumar, Vs R.Jayakumar

The National Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Saiman

Nagappan Vs T.D.Sivaraman

A.Kanakaraj Vs N.L.Char

The M.D., Vs a.Renuka