Dismissed

Coimbatore Roller Rlour v. Chandramouli

Madras HC1 Oct 2015CRL A/59/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused in a cheating case. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's finding that the execution of promissory notes negated any sinister motive, viewing the dispute as civil in nature.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed and the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was confirmed.

Coimbatore Roller Rlour Vs Chandramouli — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.10.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2006

¶6

Coimbatore Roller Flour Mills Ltd., Sivasakthi Colony, Ganapathy, Coimbatore Rep. By Power Atorney Jayaraman S/o. Natasa Iyyer ... Appellant/complainant

¶7

¶8

Chandramouli ... Respondent /Accused

¶9

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II at Coimbatore in C.C.No.700 of 2001, dated 2.9.2005 and convict the respondent herein.

¶10

For appellant : Mr.MA.P.Thangavel For Respondent : Mr.S.Saravanan

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal passed in Calendar Case No. 700 of 2001 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore.

¶13

The appellant herein, as complainant, has filed the compliant in question and the same has been taken on file in Calendar Case No. 700 of 2001, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole accused. In the complaint, it is averred that the respondent has been appointed as an Area Agent so as to collect the amounts due from the customers and accordingly, the accused has collected Rs.2,88,440/- and subsequently he paid only a meagre sum of Rs.3,590/- and failed to pay the balance amount. Under such circumstances, he executed certain documents including a promissory note and even after such execution, the accused has failed to discharge his liability. Under such circumstances, he cheated the

¶14

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

¶15

complainant and therefore, the complaint has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

¶16

The Trial Court, after considering the divergent facts and evidences available on record, has dismissed the complaint.

¶17

As against the dismissal order, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the complainant, as appellant.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant has repeatedly contended that the accused has acted as an Agent of the complainant and his main duty is to collect amounts from the customers and in that way he collected a sum of Rs.2,88,440/- and out of the said amount, he has paid only a meagre amount and failed to pay the remaining amount. Under such circumstances, by way of acknowledging his liability, he executed certain documents including a promissory note and in spite of this, he failed to discharge his liability and thereby cheated the complainant. Under such circumstances, the present complaint has been filed wherein an offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out and the Trial Court even without considering the plenitude of evidence available on the side of the complainant has erroneously dismissed the complaint and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentaccused has contended that the respondent-accused has executed certain documents by way of acknowledging his liability and there is no intention on his part to cheat the complainant and the Trial Court after considering the nature of documents executed by the respondentaccused has rightly found that the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Trial Court is perfectly correct and the same does not call for any interference.

¶20

The short point that comes up for consideration in the present Criminal Appeal is as to whether the the respondent-accused had acted with mala fide intention so as to cheat the appellantcomplainant?

¶21

On the side of the appellant-complainant, various documents have been filed for the purpose of proving the alleged liability of the accused and some of the documents are acknowledgments as well as promissory note alleged to have been executed by the accused.

¶22

The Trial Court, after considering the evidences available on record, has given a finding to the effect that for the purpose of redressing the grievance of the complainant, the complainant can very well file a Civil Suit.

¶23

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

¶24

It has already been pointed out that the accused is said to have executed acknowledgments and promissory note. Since the accused has executed acknowledgments and promissory note in favour of the complainant, the court can very well come to a conclusion that there is no sinister motive on the part of the accused so as to deceive the complainant. Further, since the accused has executed certain documents, admissible under law, the complainant can very well institute a Civil Suit so as to recover the amount due from the accused, but the complainant has not done it.

¶25

It has already been pointed out that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the accused so as to cheat the complainant. Since he executed the documents mentioned supra, the court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 420 of of Indian Penal Code.

¶26

The Trial Court, after considering the divergent facts available on record, has rightly found that the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out and altogether, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

In fine, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the order passed in C.C.No.700 of 2001 by the court below is confirmed.

Sd/-

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore

¶35

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶36

+1 cc to Mr.S.Saravanan, Advocate, sr.53572

Crl.A.No.59 of 2006

gr co

kra 12/10/2015

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

Coimbatore Roller Rlour v. Chandramouli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Coimbatore Roller Rlour v. Chandramouli

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

Shri.P.Muthuvelraj Vs the Inspector of Police

S.H.Abdul Careem Vs the Intelligence Officer

Raj Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil @Gowtham Vs State Rep by

N.Gandhi Vs Kumarapillai

K.Thamilselvan Vs the State Rep by